Table 2.
Video directly observed therapy outcomes and data utilization (n=25).
| Variable | Value | |
| Adherencea (%), median (IQRb) | 74 (62-84) | |
| Verifiable fractionc (%), median (IQR) | 86 (74-98) | |
| Dosing frequency, n (%) |
|
|
|
|
3 times per week DOTd | 5 (20) |
|
|
7 times per week DOT | 20 (80) |
| Treatment phase at enrollment, n (%) |
|
|
|
|
Intensive | 5 (20) |
|
|
Continuation | 20 (80) |
| Number of weeks on vDOTe, median (IQR) | 13 (11-16) | |
| Total uploaded videosf (n) | 1722 | |
| Mean uploads per patient, mean (SD) | 91 (53) | |
| Number of rejected videos per patient |
|
|
|
|
Mean (SD) | 1.6 (2.4) |
|
|
Range | 0-8 |
| Video length (seconds), median (IQR) | 44 (31-52) | |
| Video size (MB), median (IQR) | 1.5 (1.1-1.7) | |
aProportion of total prescribed doses completed under video observation. Of note, no in-person directly observed therapy was noted either before or after the implementation of video directly observed therapy.
bIQR: interquartile range.
cProportion of total prescribed doses verified by any means, including successful observation by video upload and verbal dose confirmation (by phone or in person) following the submission of an incomplete or poor quality video.
dDOT: directly observed therapy.
evDOT: video directly observed therapy.
fTotal video (accepted + rejected + run-in phase) uploads across all patients over the length of the study.