Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0294936. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294936

Acceptability of smart locker technology for dispensing chronic disease medication among patients and healthcare providers in Nigeria

Ibrahim Bola Gobir 1,*, Piring’ar Mercy Niyang 2, Havilah Onyinyechi Nnadozie 2, Samson Agboola 2, Helen Adamu 2, Fatimah Ohunene Sanni 2, Angmun Suzzy Otubo 3, Idris Saliu 4, Adetiloye Oniyire 5, Deus Bazira 1, Ayodotun Olutola 1
Editor: Ibrahim Jahun6
PMCID: PMC10919599  PMID: 38451957

Abstract

Smart lockers are automated delivery machines. They have been used in dispensing ARVs and Tuberculosis medication to chronically ill patients in South Africa, Kenya, and Eswatini. However, there is no evidence of smart lockers in dispensing chronic disease medication in Nigeria. This study aimed to assess the acceptability of smart lockers in dispensing chronic disease medication and to describe the barriers to accessing care among patients with chronic diseases medication in 5 states in Nigeria. We conducted a cross-sectional study among healthcare workers and patients living with chronic diseases in five Nigerian states of Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Benue, and Niger between November and December 2021. A total of 1,133 participants were recruited (728 patients and 405 healthcare workers). The results revealed that most patients and healthcare workers agreed that using smart lockers for drug dispensing will lead to reduced transportation costs, hospital waiting times, the workload of healthcare workers, and decongestion of health facilities. The majority of the patients living with chronic diseases (43%) and healthcare workers (51%) showed high acceptability for the use of smart lockers. The use of smart lockers in dispensing chronic disease medication in Nigeria is feasible, and patients and healthcare workers are willing to accept the smart lockers, provided that a patient-centred implementation strategy is developed.

Introduction

The global burden of chronic diseases is on the rise. Much of this chronic disease burden is from low- and middle-income countries like Nigeria, which already has a high prevalence of infectious diseases. In Nigeria, chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory disease account for 29% of all deaths. They are projected to become the leading cause of morbidity and mortality by 2030 [1]. This epidemiological transition presents the burden of providing longitudinal management of chronic diseases in a weak health system that is more suited for managing acute illnesses. Among others, long waiting times and provider fatigue impact quality are commonplace and adversely affect service delivery. Therefore, strategies to improve chronic disease management include simplifying managerial approaches to drugs and follow-up to make care more client-centred and reduce the burden on the health system. The care differentiation describes these approaches implemented in HIV treatment programs to address the type, frequency, and location of service delivery for clients based on their needs. Some of these best practices in care differentiation are anchored on applying technology. Notable examples include the increasing adoption of telemedicine for medical consultation and follow-up, the utilization of electronic medical records and unique identifiers to enhance access to care from providers at locations of convenience, etc. A relative innovation is using smart lockers, an automated delivery machine to dispense drug refills to patients with chronic illnesses using unique codes within facilities or communities when medical consultation is not required.

Smart lockers promote patient-centred care by enabling quicker and easier dispensing of medications to patients. Its use has reduced waiting times to collect lifesaving medication while reducing foot traffic in overcrowded clinics [2]. These positive outcomes have been recorded in a few Southern African countries where smart lockers were piloted [3]. Nigeria shares similar socioeconomic and health characteristics with these countries and requires similar interventions to simplify care, reduce unnecessary client-provider interactions and reduce provider fatigue. Hence, the need to evaluate the acceptability of smart lockers for drug refills among clients with chronic illnesses and their health providers.

Methods

Study design and setting

We used a cross-sectional research design. The data was collected from the administered questionnaires developed for patients and healthcare workers in Nigeria. The participants were recruited from 8th of November to 4th of December 2021 among healthcare workers and persons living with chronic diseases across Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Benue, and Niger states in Nigeria.

We conducted this study in secondary health facilities (S1 Appendix) in 5 states in Nigeria. These facilities provide care for patients with chronic diseases such as Diabetes, hypertension, HIV, cancer, Tuberculosis etc. The facilities were identified via implementing partners supporting clinical care.

A semi structured questionnaire was used. The entry page of the survey contained survey information and objectives. The participants after giving their consent were asked to complete a questionnaire of 37 items. The first section contained the sociodemographic characteristics including gender, age, marital status, and highest educational qualification. Also, the chronic diseases of the participants and the barriers to accessing care among them. The second section assessed the acceptability of smart lockers.

Study population

The target populations for this study are health workers who provide healthcare services to individuals living with chronic diseases. Persons living with one or more of the following chronic illnesses: HIV, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, Cancer, TB, etc.

The inclusion criteria were either giving care or receiving care from the facilities listed in the S1 Appendix.

We obtained written and informed consent from all participants.

Sample size determination

Patients of persons living with chronic illnesses

According to a research paper on patterns of chronic illnesses conducted in Nigeria in 2020 [4], the percentage of chronic diseases in Nigeria is about 64.9% of the population. This was used as a proxy to estimate the population prevalence of chronic diseases given that the population of Nigeria is about 200 million [5]. This was entered into the Raosoft® sample size calculator at 4% margin of error, 95% confidence interval and 50% response distribution to yield a minimum sample size of 601.

Healthcare workers (HCW)

According to a research paper on health work force estimated between 2016 to 2030 to understand if Nigeria will have enough workforce. [6], the estimated number of HCWs was 621,205. This was used as a proxy for HCWs providing care to chronic illness patients. This was inputted into the Raosoft® sample size calculator at a 5% margin of error, 95% confidence interval and 50% response distribution to yield a minimum sample size of 384.

Selection of participants

Healthcare workers providing chronic disease care and patients with chronic illnesses were identified through the selected healthcare facilities in the respective states. Stratified random sampling was used to identify patients living with chronic illness and HCWs that meet the inclusion criteria. The participants were stratified based on gender i.e., 50% male and 50% female, to ensure adequate representation.

Data sources/Collection methods

Patients and health workers’ survey

We used a self-administered semi-structured questionnaire to collect sociodemographic characteristics and the acceptability of smart lockers. We also collected information on current barriers to accessing treatment, perception of using the smart lockers for the collection of medication, and potential benefits and challenges with using the smart lockers for collecting medication.

Statistical analysis

We performed descriptive statistics to summarize variables and chi-square test was used to determine the associations between variables. All analysis was performed at a 5% significance level and carried out using STATA version 15.0 and Microsoft Excel (2016).

Ethical considerations

Informed consent

The entry page of the survey contained information on the study objectives, eligibility criteria, data privacy and researchers’ disclaimers. Informed consent was obtained from participants. If a participant ticks the “I agree” checkbox on the survey, it was considered sufficient to provide informed consent. Entries from participants who do not meet the inclusion criteria was not processed for data analysis.

Confidentiality

All entries were recorded anonymously. Personally identifiable information was not collected from the participants. Privacy of the subjects’ information was guaranteed.

Risks and benefits

There were no adverse effects that affected the right and welfare of the subjects. There were no direct benefits associated with participation in the study.

Ethical clearance

The study protocol was submitted for review and approval to the Nigeria Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC). Permission was also obtained from the administrators of the health facilities where data collection was conducted.

Results

A total of 1,180 persons were invited and 1,133 participants completed the survey giving a response rate of 96% (Fig 1). Of the 1,133 responses included in the analysis, 405 were received from HCWs, and 728 were from persons living with chronic illnesses or caregivers of persons living with chronic diseases in Nigeria.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of the study sample size.

Fig 1

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants. Most of the respondents in the patient survey were female (55.9%), whereas most HCWs were male (51.4%) and 67.9% and 50.1% of the participants were between the age group of 18–35 years and 36–60 years for HCWs and patients respectively; 48.9% and 57.6% of the participants were single for HCWs and married for patients respectively. The majority of the participants had Post-Secondary Education (86.9%) and Secondary Education (40.5%) for HCWs and Patients groups respectively.

Table 1. Demographics of the participants.

Variables HCWs, n = 405 Patients, n = 728
Gender
Male 208 (51.4%) 321 (44.1%)
Female 197 (48.6%) 407 (55.9%)
Age
18–35 275 (67.9%) 338 (46.4%)
36–60 125 (30.9%) 365 (50.1%)
> 60 5 (1.2%) 25 (3.4%)
Marital status
Single 198 (48.9%) 187 (25.7%)
Married 197 (48.6%) 419 (57.6%)
Previously Married 10 (2.5%) 122 (16.8%)
Highest educational qualification
No formal Education 2 (0.5%) 97 (13.3%)
Primary Education 7 (1.7%) 135 (18.5%)
Secondary Education 44 (10.9%) 295 (40.5%)
Post-Secondary Education 352 (86.9%) 201 (27.6%)

The most common morbidity among the participants was HIV (76.7%). Among the 599 participants with HIV, more than half were females (n = 316, 52.8%). Among female participants with HIV, the age group with the highest proportion was 18–35 years (n = 156, 49.4%) while among males the age group with the highest proportion was 36–60 years (n = 135, 55.8%), (Table 2).

Table 2. Gender, age, and reported morbidity of patients.

Female Male Total
18–35 36–60 > 60 18–35 36–60 > 60
Diabetes 7 10 2 7 11 1 38 (5.2%)
Hypertension 9 20 2 10 11 2 55 (7.6%)
HIV 156 148 12 101 135 6 599 (76.7%)
Cancer 4 7 1 4 4 - 20 (2.8%)
Tuberculosis 10 13 2 14 8 2 49 (6.7%)
Others 1 2 - 2 2 - 7 (1.0%)

Similarly, the healthcare workers were young between ages of 18 and 35 years and the majority were nurse (42.5%), followed by Laboratory scientists (21.5%), Pharmacists (12.6%), and CHEW (10.1%), (Table 3).

Table 3. Gender, age, and professional cadre of healthcare workers.

Female Male Total
18–35 36–60 > 60 18–35 36–60 > 60
Doctor 8 5 0 7 8 1 29 (7.2%)
Nurse 58 17 1 66 30 0 172 (42.5%)
Pharmacist 16 11 1 16 7 0 51 (12.6%)
CHEW 23 12 0 6 0 0 41 (10.1%)
Laboratory scientist 26 7 1 34 18 1 87 (21.5%)
Nutritionist/Dietician 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 (0.2%)
Physiotherapist 0 4 0 2 0 0 6 (1.5%)
Others2 6 1 0 7 4 0 18 (4.4%)

2Care, prevention, and support officer (OVC), Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, ART Linkage and Retention Coordinator, Pharmaceutical Technologist

Acceptability of smart lockers for dispensing chronic disease medication in 5 states in Nigeria

The majority of patients living with chronic disease (51.0%) and healthcare workers (43.0%) were very likely to accept the use of smart lockers for dispensing chronic disease medications (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Acceptability of smart lockers for dispensing chronic disease medication among patients and healthcare workers in 5 states in Nigeria.

Fig 2

The proportion of patients with HIV, Hypertension, and Diabetes that indicated they would very likely utilize smart lockers for drug refills was 45.9%, 53.6%, and 74.4%, respectively. The proportions were lower with patients with tuberculosis (36.1%) and cancer (16.0%), (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Acceptability of smart lockers among patients stratified by morbidity in 5 states in Nigeria.

Fig 3

As shown in Table 4, most people living with HIV and hypertension were likely to accept smart lockers for dispensing medication. The distribution of the acceptance of smart lockers technology for dispensing chronic disease medication in Nigeria was significantly different (Σ-calc. = 75.762, p<0.05).

Table 4. Acceptability of smart lockers among patients with various chronic diseases.

Not likely Somewhat likely Very likely
% (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI)
DM 9.3 2.4–29.2 16.3 4.2–33.7 74.4 53.7–88.9
Hypertension 20.3 10.2–32.4 26.1 25.8–40.3 53.6 39.7–67.0
HIV 18.4 15.3–21.9 35.7 31.7–39.8 45.9 41.7–50.1
Cancer 72 45.7–88.1 12 1.2–31.7 16 3.2–37.9
Tuberculosis 45.9 32.1–61.9 18 9.1–33.3 36.1 22.7–51.5
Others 0 0 22 6.4–47.6 78 52.4–93.6
Total 21 18.1–24.2 32.1 28.8–35.7 46.8 43.2–50.5

3Asthmatic, Surgical cases

As shown in Table 5, 48.9% of the patients said that they were unwilling to pay to use the smart lockers; however, 23.2% were willing to pay a token to use the lockers, and 27.9% said their willingness to pay would be dependent on the cost charged for the use of the lockers. Using the conversion rates of 410.95 naira per dollar in the year 2021 when the study was conducted, among those willing to pay, a maximum of 200Naira and 200-500Naira were acceptable to 61% and 27.4% of respondents, respectively.

Table 5. Patients’ willingness-to-pay.

Would you be willing to pay a token to use the smart lockers for collecting your drugs? %
No 356 (48.9%)
Yes 169 (23.2%)
Depending on the cost 203 (27.9%)
How much would you be willing to pay to use the smart lockers for collecting your drugs?
Naira Cents/ Dollar %
100–200 Naira 0.24–0.48 444 (61.0%)
200–500 Naira 048–1.21 200 (27.4%)
500–1000 Naira 1.21–2.43 55 (7.5%)
Above 1000 Naira Above 2 dollars 22 (3.0%)
Didn’t specify 8 (1.1%)

Barriers to accessing and providing chronic disease care among patients and healthcare workers in Nigeria

To identify perceived barriers to accessing and providing chronic disease care among patients and healthcare workers, participants were asked some key questions pertaining to the current perceived barriers.

The most frequently encountered barrier reported by patients was the cost of transportation to the hospitals, followed by the distance to the healthcare facility where they receive care. They also indicated that long waiting times were a barrier to accessing care. The patient reported barriers to accessing chronic disease care where transportation cost (41.9%), distance (30.2%), long waiting time (17.9%), medication cost (4.4%), rare drugs (2.9%) and drug stuck out (2.7%). The healthcare workers reported barriers to giving care to patients with chronic diseases were long working hours (23.7%), limited resources in the health facility (20.0%), high volume of patients (18.0%), physical fatigue (17.8%), completing work responsibilities (11.9%) and, emotional fatigue (8.6%).

Discussion

The study focused on the acceptability of smart locker technology for dispensing chronic disease medication and significant barriers encountered in accessing chronic disease care in Nigeria, which include the cost of transportation and the long distance to access care. These barriers buttress the affordability, accessibility, and availability of primary care in low to middle-income countries like Nigeria [7]. Chronic care management requires expertise that may not be readily available in primary healthcare settings, requiring referral to secondary health facilities that are less accessible due to distance or cost [8]. The cost of health care to the patients, including transportation costs and subscription fees to use the smart lockers, may be an understandable price to pay, as this will address the issue of long waiting hours at the clinic. This would make access to smart lockers affordable to many patients of low socioeconomic status. However, the majority of the patients were reluctant to accept to pay for the use of smart lockers, as reported in our study. On the part of healthcare workers, barriers to providing chronic disease care were predominantly related to the imbalance in workload and existing capacity within the health facilities. The poor working conditions and high workload encountered by healthcare providers lead to a reduction in their motivation [9]. This reduces the quality of patient-provider interaction and the quality of care provided.

The acceptability of smart lockers for dispensing chronic disease medications was high among patients with chronic illnesses and healthcare workers. Though the study had a preponderance of HIV clients due to the study location, the acceptance was comparably high among the patients with HIV infection, Diabetes, and Hypertension. In addition, most respondents indicated that the smart lockers might best serve people living with HIV between the ages of 18–35. The added privacy or confidentiality that the machine offers due to limited human contact may probably contribute to its acceptance for conditions like HIV that are associated with stigma and discrimination. The HIV treatment programs have implemented several models to differentiate care for clients, including facility and community refills (DSD). Therefore, PLHIVs are more accustomed to innovations in drug refills and are required to use their medications for life compared to patients with Tuberculosis or cancer. Likewise, patients with diabetes and hypertension are empowered in the self-management of their diseases for services such as monitoring blood pressure or blood sugar monitoring without visiting healthcare facilities [10]. The use of smart lockers would therefore serve as an adjunct to these methods of drug dispensing, making it easier for patients to access their drugs within the shortest possible time and may account for the high acceptability rates among these patients. The shorter duration of treatment for Tuberculosis and the severity of the symptoms requiring frequent provider evaluation may account for the lower acceptance for Tuberculosis and cancer patients. In addition, there is limited access to resources and knowledge on self-management, especially about the independent management of patients [11].

Respondents revealed the cost of transportation, distance to health facilities and long waiting time as barriers to accessing care, we believe smart lockers have the potential to reduce the turnaround time and limit barriers [1214]. Most respondents were likely to accept smart lockers for dispensing medication, especially to improve access to healthcare through a reduction in waiting time.

This expectedly addresses the barriers to access identified in the study. There was less consensus on the ability of smart lockers to improve treatment adherence. This is probably because medication adherence is multifactorial, including the health system, drug-related, or patient factors. Many factors influence treatment adherence [15]. However, only issues related to accessibility and ease of access can be addressed using decentralized models of care such as smart lockers. Healthcare workers agree that smart lockers could decongest healthcare facilities, reduce workload, reduce provider fatigue and enhance the quality of care.

This study is the first to describe the acceptability of smart lockers for dispensing chronic disease medication in Nigeria. The findings are instructive in piloting this new technology for service differentiation.

In addition, the use of surveys may have led to self-selection bias, as the respondents may have an inherently unique characteristic that may have influenced their choices regarding the use of smart lockers. The study has some limitations as most patient responses were received from PLHIV due to the characteristics of the hospitals selected and the fact that the HIV program provides the most extensive organized chronic care programs in those locations, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other chronic diseases. Furthermore, the cross-sectional nature of this study, using a semi-structured tool may have limited the variety of responses, as participants were limited to the options provided on the questionnaire for most of the questions. Further research may benefit from using qualitative methods to explore the perceptions of under-represented populations of patients living with chronic diseases and healthcare workers to characterize their specific challenges in accessing or providing chronic disease care and acceptability for using smart lockers and estimate the acceptability of smart lockers.

Conclusion

Smart lockers for dispensing chronic diseases in Nigeria are a feasible option for addressing the barriers encountered by patients with chronic illnesses, particularly PLHIV in Nigeria, such as distance to access care, high cost of transportation, long wait times, increased patient volume, and the high workload for healthcare workers. Its implementation should consider location and acceptability that enhance privacy and confidentiality.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Distribution of states and facilities.

(DOCX)

pone.0294936.s001.docx (16.2KB, docx)
S2 Appendix. Supplementary data.

(XLSX)

pone.0294936.s002.xlsx (1.1MB, xlsx)
S3 Appendix. Study protocol.

(PDF)

pone.0294936.s003.pdf (576.7KB, pdf)
S4 Appendix. Approval for study protocol.

(PDF)

pone.0294936.s004.pdf (94.6KB, pdf)

Data Availability

Data set supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper, and its supporting information files. (Supplementary data).

Funding Statement

• Initials of Author: Ibrahim Bola Gobir: (IBG) • Full Name of each funder: Georgetown Medical Center Dean of Research • URL of funders website: https://gumc.georgetown.edu/ NO- The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

Decision Letter 0

Ibrahim Jahun

8 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-21767Feasibility and Acceptability of Smart lockers Technology for Dispensing Chronic Disease Medication in NigeriaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bola Gobir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The study findings are of immense value in strengthening patient-centered care especially in this era of digital health. However, the paper requires substantial improvement to ensure clarity of the great message the study is conveying. Please address the following comments in addition to the comments provided by the two reviewers. Also ensure that tables, figures and format are inline with plosone criteria:

  1. Financial disclosure:Please be specific about the funding source. If the study wasn’t funded, please state so. If funded, but the funders have no role to play, then indicate the funding source and clarify as such.

  2. Selection of facilities – any criteria?

  3. Please include the following references
    1. Faronbi, Ademuyiwa and Olaogun (2020)
    2. Adebayo, Labiran, Emerenini and Omoruyi (2016),
  4. Please specifically define the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the 2 – 3 study groups (patients, relatives, and healthcare providers).

  5. Also try to be consistent – patients/care givers or just patients to avoid confusion.

  6. Was the study conducted in HIV clinics? Majority of the patients are HIV clients. This indicates the likelihood of targeting HIV clinics. Also do other patients with other chronic illnesses have comorbidity with HIV?

  7. Also only patients are represented in the results but in the study population it was stated that patients/caregivers. Will be good to disagregate between these 2 groups.

  8. Figures 2 and 3 titles should be specific. If the decision is to generalize this study (Nigeria wide), then the titles should include Nigeria.

  9. The statistical analysis may be misleading because there are no CI especially for the chronic diseases since there is huge margin between the disease groups (absolute numbers). Closely related to this concern is the generalization of the findings (Nigeria wide) which may be misleading since the 5 states are not representative of the country based on socio-economic disparities.

  10. Willingness to pay – based on this, it will be highly important to define “acceptability” in the context of this study. Is “willingness to pay” = “acceptability” in the study context or is among the acceptability criteria? Also, can Naira equivalent be included at the time of the study in USD?

  11. “Barriers to accessing and providing chronic disease care among patients and healthcare workers in Nigeria” – this subheading is “hanging”. Will be good to introduce this in the methodology.

  12. “Feasibility” is not defined. Will be good to add a section about this and to clarify how it was assessed. Otherwise, it shouldn’t be part of the “title” and shouldn’t be mentioned in the paper.

  13. Brief description of the questionnaire and relevant variables in the methods will be helpful in addressing some of the comments above

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 23 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Jahun, MD, MSC, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. Please include a copy of Tables 6 and 8 which you refer to in your text on pages 10 and 11.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper has satisfactorily addressed the problem statement. The manuscript was well written, and data was made available during the review. Mixed citation style was observed as well as missing referenced. The sample size for the participant might be overestimated considering the geographical coverage of the study. Additional comments wer uploaded.

Reviewer #2: The authors research aims to introduce a more secured electronic storage system with capability for automated delivery functionalities to dispense chronic disease medication or drug refills to patients with chronic illnesses assessing healthcare services within facilities or communities, using unique codes. As a result, overcrowding, patients’ out of pocket payment to and from, and waiting time in clinics are reduced. This technology also serves to support patient-centered healthcare service delivery model and reduces healthcare service providers’ fatigue (pp. 3-4). This research revealed that majority of the HCWs, the patients and their caregivers accepted the use of this technology (p.2) if patient centered. However, it would have been better if the authors maintain consistency in stating the actual number of Nigerian states that participated in this research. In some places, 6 states were mentioned, another place stated 5 states (See abstract page, Method section p. 4, line 67). I wished the authors rephrase the sentences in lines 198 – 201 0f page 12) for clarity. This research has a potential to improve a differentiated model of patient care, especially amongst chronically ill patients if well implemented. On the other hand, it will work best amongst literate and technology savvy populations but may pose some form of challenges amongst the unlettered or the population without good knowledge on high-end technology-oriented devices.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mukhtar Liman AHMAD

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments for Feasibility and Acceptability of Smart lockers.docx

pone.0294936.s005.docx (15.7KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 7;19(3):e0294936. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294936.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Oct 2023

Reviewer 1(Mukhtar Liman Ahmed): Thank you for your comment on number of states. It has been clarified and addressed: 5 states were included in the study according to Appendix 1 and the result.

Reviewer 1(Mukhtar Liman Ahmed): It is deeply appreciated that you pointed out the missed references; we have now included these references in the reference list using the PLOS ONE reference style.

Reviewer 1(Mukhtar Liman Ahmed): Thank you for pointing the mixed references, they have been cited properly and the reference style adjusted accordingly and consistently.

Reviewer 1(Mukhtar Liman Ahmed): Thank you for this feedback, the sentence has been revised and rephrased to be adjusted in line with the result of the study to improve clarity.

Reviewer 1(Mukhtar Liman Ahmed): Thank you for pointing this out based on the mixed number of states and the sample sizes based on the national estimated parameters. The study was conducted in 5 states, and we have corrected this. We agree that using national estimates may not be ideal. However, we used these estimates because we believe national estimates may be appropriate for a multi-state study than using single study estimates. We oversampled to account for the inherent nature of poor response rates that have been traditionally reported for online surveys.

Reviewer 1(Mukhtar Liman Ahmed): Thank you for your keen observation on the rational for the error margins. We varied the error margins to adjust for differences in expected precision based on the calculated sample sizes of the two study populations.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): Thank you for your comment on financial disclosure. The study was funded by Georgetown University Medical Center, Dean of Research. The funder did not play any role in the research. This has been addressed in the cover letter and the section allotted for funding information in the submission form.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): Thank you for your comment on the criteria for facility selection. The facilities were identified and randomly selected via implementing partners supporting clinical care.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): Thank you for bringing our attention to the missing references. They have been included.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): This comment is well received on the inclusion criteria for our study group. The inclusion criteria for the study were individuals who are either or receiving care from facilities listed in Appendix 1”. We collected information from healthcare providers and patients. For a few of the patients who were not able to complete the survey by themselves, this was completed by their relative on their behalf. The relatives were not part of the study population and we have updated that.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): This comment on patients/ care providers is appreciated and noted. Our document reflects “patients” going forward.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): Thank you for your question on whether the study was conducted in HIV clinics. The study was conducted among patients with chronic illnesses and Health Care Workers which were identified through ART programs’ implementing partners (IP). However, for this study, we included patients from other general and disease-specific clinics within the same hospitals. We did not specifically set out to screen for HIV in other clinics. However, we agree that there is a possibility of comorbidity with HIV in other non-HIV clinics that patients may be unaware of.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): This is kindly noted and adjusted. Our document reflects “patients” going forward.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): This comment is kindly noted. This adjustment has been made in this section of the result to include “in 5 states in Nigeria.”

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): We have included the proportions and 95% CIs of the proportions for acceptability across different chronic diseases.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): Thank you for your observation on the lack of naira equivalent to USD. Yes, willingness to pay gives further justification for the acceptability of smart lockers. The Naira equivalent to USD at the time of the study has been included.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): thank you for sharing your observation on the hanging subheading “Barriers to accessing and providing chronic disease care among patients and healthcare workers in Nigeria”. This is kindly noted. This section has been addressed in the objectives, results and the discussion section.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): We agree with the reviewer that we did not define feasibility in this paper. We did not set out to assess feasibility on its own but indirectly. Our aim was to directly measure acceptability of and willingness-to-pay for smart locker and indirectly use them as indicators of feasibility of this intervention in Nigeria.

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): The comment on defining feasibility is well received. We have now updated the title to reflect this: “Acceptability of smart locker technology for chronic disease medication among patients and healthcare providers in Nigeria.”

Reviewer 2(Ibrahim Jahun, Academic editor): Thank you for your comment on description of questionnaire. This is noted and has been addressed and a description of the questionnaire has been included in the methods section.

Additional Clarifications

1. The PLOS ONE File naming format was used as requested.

2. The PLOS ONE questionnaire on Inclusivity in global research is not required for this paper as this applies to researchers who travelled to a different country to conduct research.

3. The full ethics statement of our study has been included in the methods section, as requested.

4. The tables referred to (6 & 8) on pages (10 &11) have been merged into tables (4 & 5) based on relevant information required for the tables.

5. All in-text citations have been updated to match accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response Letter to Reviewers Manuscript 1_SLS_FINAL.docx

pone.0294936.s006.docx (17.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ibrahim Jahun

13 Nov 2023

Acceptability of smart locker technology for dispensing chronic disease medication among patients and healthcare providers in Nigeria.

PONE-D-23-21767R1

Dear Dr. Gobir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ibrahim Jahun, MD, MSC, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have done justice to the previous review comments and have provided all relevant supporting Documents. Regarding the changes made to the manuscript initial title page, I will suggest the Authors revert to the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC) to inform of the changes in title for easy referencing in future.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mukhtar Liman Ahmed

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bassey, Orji Orji

**********

Acceptance letter

Ibrahim Jahun

17 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-21767R1

Acceptability of smart locker technology for dispensing chronic disease medication among patients and healthcare providers in Nigeria.

Dear Dr. Gobir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ibrahim Jahun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Distribution of states and facilities.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0294936.s001.docx (16.2KB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. Supplementary data.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0294936.s002.xlsx (1.1MB, xlsx)
    S3 Appendix. Study protocol.

    (PDF)

    pone.0294936.s003.pdf (576.7KB, pdf)
    S4 Appendix. Approval for study protocol.

    (PDF)

    pone.0294936.s004.pdf (94.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments for Feasibility and Acceptability of Smart lockers.docx

    pone.0294936.s005.docx (15.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter to Reviewers Manuscript 1_SLS_FINAL.docx

    pone.0294936.s006.docx (17.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data set supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper, and its supporting information files. (Supplementary data).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES