Open AccessAssessing private provider perceptions and the acceptability of video observed treatment technology for tuberculosis treatment adherence in three cities across Viet Nam
Author(s) -
Lan Huu Nguyen,
Phuong Thi Minh Tran,
Thu A. Dam,
Rachel Jeanette Forse,
Andrew James Codlin,
Huy Ba Huynh,
Thuy Thi Thu Dong,
Giang Hoai Nguyen,
Vinh Van Truong,
Ha Thi Minh Dang,
Tuan D. Nguyen,
Hoa B. Nguyen,
Nhung Viet Nguyen,
Amera Khan,
Jacob Creswell,
Luan Nguyen Quang Vo
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0250644
Subject(s) - vietnamese , private sector , perception , health care , medicine , family medicine , psychology , political science , philosophy , linguistics , neuroscience , law
Background The World Health Organization recently recommended Video Observed Therapy (VOT) as one option for monitoring tuberculosis (TB) treatment adherence. There is evidence that private sector TB treatment has substandard treatment follow-up, which could be improved using VOT. However, acceptability of VOT in the private sector has not yet been evaluated. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey employing a theoretical framework for healthcare intervention acceptability to measure private provider perceptions of VOT across seven constructs in three cities of Viet Nam: Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City, and Hai Phong. We investigated the differences in private providers’ attitudes and perceptions of VOT using mixed ordinal models to test for significant differences in responses between groups of providers stratified by their willingness to use VOT. Results A total of 79 private providers completed the survey. Sixty-two providers (75%) indicated they would use VOT if given the opportunity. Between private providers who would and would not use VOT, there were statistically significant differences (p≤0.001) in the providers’ beliefs that VOT would help identify side effects faster and in their confidence to monitor treatment and provide differentiated care with VOT. There were also significant differences in providers’ beliefs that VOT would save them time and money, address problems faced by their patients, benefit their practice and patients, and be relevant for all their patients. Conclusion Private providers who completed the survey have positive views towards using VOT and specific subpopulations acknowledge the value of integrating VOT into their practice. Future VOT implementation in the private sector should focus on emphasizing the benefits and relevance of VOT during recruitment and provide programmatic support for implementing differentiated care with the technology.