Cited by 31Health Policy Implementation ScienceHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHealthcare Quality and Management

The impact of continuous quality improvement on coverage of antenatal HIV care tests in rural South Africa: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled implementation trial

Open access
Yapa, H. Manisha, De Neve, Jan-Walter, Chetty, Terusha, Herbst, Carina, Post, Frank A., Jiamsakul, Awachana, Geldsetzer, Pascal, Harling, Guy +10 more·2020·PLOS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) in resource-poor settings is very limited. We aimed to establish the effects of CQI on quality of antenatal HIV care in primary care clinics in rural South Africa. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing CQI to usual standard of antenatal care (ANC) in 7 nurse-led, public-sector primary care clinics-combined into 6 clusters-over 8 steps and 19 months. Clusters randomly switched from comparator to intervention on pre-specified dates until all had rolled over to the CQI intervention. Investigators and clusters were blinded to randomisation until 2 weeks prior to each step. The intervention was delivered by trained CQI mentors and included standard CQI tools (process maps, fishbone diagrams, run charts, Plan-Do-Study-Act [PDSA] cycles, and action learning sessions). CQI mentors worked with health workers, including nurses and HIV lay counsellors. The mentors used the standard CQI tools flexibly, tailored to local clinic needs. Health workers were the direct recipients of the intervention, whereas the ultimate beneficiaries were pregnant women attending ANC. Our 2 registered primary endpoints were viral load (VL) monitoring (which is critical for elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV [eMTCT] and the health of pregnant women living with HIV) and repeat HIV testing (which is necessary to identify and treat women who seroconvert during pregnancy). All pregnant women who attended their first antenatal visit at one of the 7 study clinics and were ≥18 years old at delivery were eligible for endpoint assessment. We performed intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses using modified Poisson generalised linear mixed effects models. We estimated effect sizes with time-step fixed effects and clinic random effects (Model 1). In separate models, we added a nested random clinic-time step interaction term (Model 2) or individual random effects (Model 3). Between 15 July 2015 and 30 January 2017, 2,160 participants with 13,212 ANC visits (intervention n = 6,877, control n = 6,335) were eligible for ITT analysis. No adverse events were reported. Median age at first booking was 25 years (interquartile range [IQR] 21 to 30), and median parity was 1 (IQR 0 to 2). HIV prevalence was 47% (95% CI 42% to 53%). In Model 1, CQI significantly increased VL monitoring (relative risk [RR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.57, p < 0.001) but did not improve repeat HIV testing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13, p = 0.958). These results remained essentially the same in both Model 2 and Model 3. Limitations of our study include that we did not establish impact beyond the duration of the relatively short study period of 19 months, and that transition steps may have been too short to achieve the full potential impact of the CQI intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We found that CQI can be effective at increasing quality of primary care in rural Africa. Policy makers should consider CQI as a routine intervention to boost quality of primary care in rural African communities. Implementation research should accompany future CQI use to elucidate mechanisms of action and to identify factors supporting long-term success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT02626351.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003150

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Yapa et al. (2020) included seven clusters.

    “7”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    Methods > Participants identifies seven study clinics, but Methods > Trial design says the two smallest clinics were merged into one cluster. The trial therefore included six clusters, not seven; the claim appears to count clinics as clusters. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Yapa et al. (2020) used four steps in the stepped wedge design.

    “4”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Methods > Trial design section explicitly calls this an “8-step stepped-wedge RCT,” not a four-step design. Its figure description also identifies steps from Step 0 through Step 7. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Yapa et al. (2020) used a stepped wedge design where all clusters receive intervention in randomised sequence, with masking only until randomisation status identified at the start of each intervention step.

    “All clusters receive intervention, in randomised sequence. Masking was only until randomisation status identified at the start of each intervention step.”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Methods > Trial design passage says every cluster rolled over from control to intervention in random order. Methods > Randomisation and blinding says investigators and healthcare workers remained blinded until each cluster was revealed two weeks before its scheduled intervention rollover, not until the start of that step. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In several stepped-wedge studies, randomization was combined with masking to reduce bias during the intervention phase.

    “In several studies, randomization was combined with masking to reduce bias during the intervention phase (43, 56).”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Methods sections on Trial design and Randomisation and blinding describe a stepped-wedge trial with randomised clinic rollout and investigators and healthcare workers blinded to the allocation sequence. But each cluster’s allocation was revealed two weeks before its intervention rollover, so the paper does not support masking during that cluster’s intervention phase. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Yapa et al. (2020) had a duration of 2 months between steps.

    “2 months”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [28]Maman D, Huerga H, Mukui I, Chilima B, Kirubi B, Van Cutsem G, et al. Most breastfeeding women with high viral load are still undiagnosed in sub-Saharan Africa. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); 2015; Seattle, Washington: Abstract number 32.
  2. [60]WHO. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016. 28079998

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yapa, H. M., De Neve, J.-W., Chetty, T., Herbst, C., Post, F. A., Jiamsakul, A., Geldsetzer, P., Harling, G., Dhlomo-Mphatswe, W., Moshabela, M., Matthews, P., Ogbuoji, O., Tanser, F., Gareta, D., Herbst, K., Pillay, D., Wyke, S., & Bärnighausen, T.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
  • Africa Health Research Institute (ZA)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (ZA)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Yapa, H. Manisha
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Published
2020-10-07
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
e1003150
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W3092619729
Cited by
31
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (EuropeAid/134286/L/ACT/ZA)
  • Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • South African Population Research Infrastructure Network
  • Australian Government Research Training Programme (Scholarship)
  • Department of Health, Australian Government
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (Professor award)
  • South African Medical Research Council (Clinician Researcher Programme)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2TR003143)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD084233)
  • National Institute on Aging (P01-AI112339)
  • Fogarty International Center (D43-TW009775)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
continuous quality improvement, antenatal HIV testing, HIV viral load monitoring, mother-to-child transmission of HIV, repeat HIV testing, nurse-led primary care, PDSA cycle, quality improvement tools, rural South Africa, pregnant women living with HIV, implementation research, health system strengthening, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Implementation Science, Adult, Female, HIV Seropositivity, Humans, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Primary Health Care, RNA, Viral, Rural Population, South Africa, HIV Infections, Process Assessment, Health Care, Total Quality Management, Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical, Anti-HIV Agents, Viral Load, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Young Adult, Practice Patterns, Nurses', Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review