BACKGROUND: Electronic health information systems (HIS) are critical components of national health systems, and have been identified as a key element in the development and strengthening of health systems globally. Novel approaches are needed to effectively and efficiently train health care workers on the use of HIS. One such approach is the use of digital eLearning programs, either alone or blended with face-to-face learning activities. METHODS: We developed a novel blended eLearning course based on an in-person HIS training package previously developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We then conducted a pilot implementation of the eLearning course in Namibia and Tanzania. RESULTS: The blended eLearning pilot program enrolled 131 people, 72 (55%) from Namibia and 59 (45%) from Tanzania. The majority of enrollees were female (n = 88, 67%) and were nurses (n=66, 50%). Of the 131 people who participated in the in-person orientation, 95 (73%) completed some or all of the eLearning modules. Across all three modules, the mean score on the post-test was significantly greater than on the pre-test (p<0.001). When comparing results from previous in-person workshops and the blended eLearning course, we found that participants experienced strong learning gains in both, although learning gains were somewhat greater in the in-person course. Blended eLearning course participants reported good to very good satisfaction with the overall content of the course and with the eLearning modules (3.5 and 3.6 out of 5-point Likert scale). We estimate that the total cost per participant is 2.2-3.4 times greater for the in-person course (estimated cost USD $980) than for the blended eLearning course (estimated cost USD $287-$437). CONCLUSION: A blended eLearning course is an effective method with which to train healthcare workers in the basic features of HIS, and the cost is up to 3.4 times less expensive than for an in-person course with similar content.

BACKGROUND: Individual-level data are needed to optimize clinical care and monitor and evaluate HIV services. Confidentiality and security of such data must be safeguarded to avoid stigmatization and discrimination of people living with HIV. We set out to assess the extent that countries scaling up HIV services have developed and implemented guidelines to protect the confidentiality and security of HIV information. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to UNAIDS field staff in 98 middle- and lower-income countries, some reportedly with guidelines (G-countries) and others intending to develop them (NG-countries). Responses were scored, aggregated and weighted to produce standard scores for six categories: information governance, country policies, data collection, data storage, data transfer and data access. Responses were analyzed using regression analyses for associations with national HIV prevalence, gross national income per capita, OECD income, receiving US PEPFAR funding, and being a G- or NG-country. Differences between G- and NG-countries were investigated using non-parametric methods. RESULTS: Higher information governance scores were observed for G-countries compared with NG-countries; no differences were observed between country policies or data collection categories. However, for data storage, data transfer and data access, G-countries had lower scores compared with NG-countries. No significant associations were observed between country score and HIV prevalence, per capita gross national income, OECD economic category, and whether countries had received PEPFAR funding. CONCLUSIONS: Few countries, including G-countries, had developed comprehensive guidelines on protecting the confidentiality and security of HIV information. Countries must develop their own guidelines, using established frameworks to guide their efforts, and may require assistance in adapting, adopting and implementing them.