Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 8;20(1):307.
doi: 10.1186/s12936-021-03803-1.

Usability of a point-of-care diagnostic to identify glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: a multi-country assessment of test label comprehension and results interpretation

Affiliations

Usability of a point-of-care diagnostic to identify glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: a multi-country assessment of test label comprehension and results interpretation

Emily Gerth-Guyette et al. Malar J. .

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) testing has the potential to make the use of radical treatment for vivax malaria safer and more effective. Widespread use of G6PD tests as part of malaria case management has been limited, in part due to due concerns regarding product usability, user training, and supervision. This study seeks to assess how well end users can understand the Standard™ G6PD Test (SD Biosensor, Suwon, South Korea) workflow, result output, and label after training. This will ultimately help inform test registration and introduction.

Methods: Potential G6PD test users who provide malaria case management at three sites in Brazil, Ethiopia, and India were trained on the use of the SD Biosensor Standard G6PD Test and assessed based on their ability to understand the test workflow and interpret results. The assessment was done through a questionnaire, designed to assess product usability against key technical product specifications and fulfill regulatory evidence requirements. Any participant who obtained 85% or above correct responses to the questionnaire was considered to adequately comprehend how to use and interpret the test.

Results: Forty-five participants, including malaria microscopists, laboratory staff, nurses, and community health workers took part in the study. Seventy-eight percent of all participants in the study (35/45) obtained passing scores on the assessment with minimal training. Responses to the multiple-choice questions indicate that most participants understood well the test intended use, safety claims, and warnings. The greatest source of error regarding the test was around the correct operating temperature. Most test results were also read and interpreted correctly, with the haemoglobin measurement being a more problematic output to interpret than the G6PD measurement.

Conclusions: These data results show how a standardized tool can be used to assess a user's ability to run a point-of-care diagnostic and interpret results. When applied to the SD Biosensor Standard G6PD Test, this tool demonstrates that a range of users across multiple contexts can use the test and suggests improvements to the test instructions and training that can improve product usability, increase user comprehension, and ultimately contribute to more widespread effective use of point-of-care G6PD tests.

Trial registration: NCT04033640.

Keywords: G6PD deficiency; Label comprehension study; Malaria diagnosis; Point-of-care diagnostics; Usability; User proficiency; User training.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Representation of the SD Biosensor STANDARD G6PD Test and key features on the screen. G6PD: glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase; g/dL: grams per decilitre; T-Hb: total haemoglobin
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
SD Biosensor STANDARD G6PD Test components. Training materials developed by PATH
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
SD Biosensor STANDARD G6PD Test procedure. Training materials developed by PATH
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Study approach summary

References

    1. Kosack CS, Page A-L, Klatser PR. A guide to aid the selection of diagnostic tests. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95:639–645. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.187468. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mori M, Ravinetto R, Jacobs J. Quality of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics in resource-limited settings. Trop Med Int Health. 2011;16:1439–1449. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02852.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Murray CK, Gasser RA, Magill AJ, Miller RS. Update on rapid diagnostic testing for malaria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008;21:97–110. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00035-07. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boyce MR, O’Meara WP. Use of malaria RDTs in various health contexts across sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:470. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4398-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilson ML. Laboratory diagnosis of malaria: conventional and rapid diagnostic methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:805–811. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0602-RA. - DOI - PubMed

Substances

Associated data