Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of existing literature on TB digital adherence technologies

From: Electronic pillbox-enabled self-administered therapy versus standard directly observed therapy for tuberculosis medication adherence and treatment outcomes in Ethiopia (SELFTB): protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Reference Country Design Outcome measure Finding
SMS
Bediang et al. 2018 [37] Cameroon RCT: SMS vs DOT Treatment success, cure No significant difference
Fang et al. 2017 [38] China RCT: SMS vs DOT Treatment completion High
Mohammed et al. 2016 [39] Pakistan RCT: SMS vs DOT Treatment success, cure No significant difference
Liu et al. 2015 [40] China RCT: 4 arms Pill count, adherence No significant improvement
Iribarren et al. 2013 [41] Argentina Cross-sectional Feasibility and acceptability acceptable and feasible
MERM
Onwubiko et al. 2019 [42] USA RCT: MERM vs DOT Treatment completion Low
Park et al. 2019 [43] Morocco RCT: MERM vs DOT Treatment success, cure High
Liu et al. 2017 [44] China Multi-method User performance, satisfaction High
Broomhead et al. 2012 [45] USA Cross-sectional Treatment outcome, cost High, lower cost per patient
Thakkar et al. 2019 [46] India Cohort, 99DOTS used Treatment adherence High
VDOT
Lam et al. 2018 [47] USA RCT. VDOT vs DOT Treatment completion High
Garfein et al. 2018 [48] USA RCT: VDOT vs DOT Adherence, cost High, lower cost
Nguyen et al. 2017 [49] Vietnam Prospective cohort Treatment adherence High
Chuck et al. 2016 [50] USA RCT: VDOT vs DOT Treatment completion High
Garfein et al. 2015 [51] USA, Mexico Single-arm trial Treatment adherence High in both settings
  1. DOT directly observed therapy, RCT randomized control trial, VDOT video directly observed therapy