3.8 Article

MDR-TB screening in a setting with molecular diagnostic techniques: who got tested, who didn't and why?

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 132-139

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/pha.14.0098

关键词

multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; delayed diagnosis; operational research; India; SORT IT

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Setting: The Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme, Puducherry, India, which has facilities for molecular diagnostic technique. Objective: To determine pre-diagnostic and pre-treatment attrition among presumptive multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients and reasons for attrition. Methods: In this mixed-methods study, the quantitative component consisted of retrospective cohort analysis through record review of all presumptive MDR-TB patients recorded between October 2012 and September 2013. The qualitative component included in-depth interviews with key informants involved in programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis services. Results: Of 341 eligible presumptive MDR-TB patients, pre-diagnostic and pre-treatment attrition was respectively 45.5% (155/341) and 29% (2/7). Patients with extra-pulmonary TB (RR = 2.3), those with human immunodeficiency and TB co-infection (RR = 1.7), those registered during October-December 2012 (RR = 1.3) and those identified from primary/secondary health centres (RR = 1.8) were less likely to be tested. Themes that emerged during the analysis of the qualitative data were 'lack of a systematic mechanism to track referrals for culture and drug susceptibility testing', 'absence of courier service to transport sputum', 'lack of knowledge and ownership among staff of general health system', 'shortage of diagnostic kits' and 'patient non-adherence'. Conclusion: Despite the introduction of molecular diagnostic techniques, operational issues in MDR-TB screening remain a concern and require urgent attention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据