4.6 Article

Tuberculosis screening in migrants in selected European countries shows wide disparities

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 801-807

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00104305

Keywords

Europe; screening; tuberculosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Well-established tuberculosis screening units in Western Europe were selectively sampled. Three screening units in Norway, two in the UK, one in the Netherlands and one in Switzerland were evaluated. The aim of this study was to describe a range of service models used at a number of individual tuberculosis units for the screening of new entrants into Europe. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, nurses and administrators from a selected sample of European tuberculosis screening units. An outline of key themes to be addressed was forwarded to units ahead of scheduled interviews. Themes included the history of the unit, structure, processes and outputs involved in screening new entrants for tuberculosis. Considerable variation in screening services exists in the approaches studied. Units are sited in transit camps or as units within hospital facilities. Staff capacity and administration varies from one clinic per week with few dedicated staff to fully dedicated units. Only one site recorded symptoms; tuberculin testing was universal in children, but varied in adults; chest radiograph screening was universal except at one site where a positive tuberculin skin test or symptoms were required in those < 35 yrs of age before ordering a radiograph. Few output data are routinely and systematically collected, which hinders comparison and determination of effectiveness and efficiency. Service models for screening new immigrants for tuberculosis appear to vary in Western Europe. The systematic collection of data would make international comparisons between units easier and help draw conclusions that might usefully inform service development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available