4.4 Article

Preferential adherence to antiretroviral therapy over tuberculosis treatment: A qualitative study of drug-resistant TB/HIV co-infected patients in South Africa

期刊

GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 1107-1116

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2014.934266

关键词

adherence; qualitative methods; drug-resistant tuberculosis; co-infection; HIV/AIDS

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [107572-1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. FIC NIH HHS [D43TW000231-16S1, D43 TW000231] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [U19 AI051794, K23 AI098479, 5K23AI098479, AI51794] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and second-line antituberculosis medications is essential to achieve successful outcomes among individuals co-infected with HIV and multi or extensively drug-resistant TB (M/XDR-TB). In 2012-2013, we designed a qualitative study to explore barriers to adherence in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We conducted six focus groups comprising 23 adults receiving treatment for either MDR-TB (n = 2) or XDR-TB (n = 21); 17 were on concurrent ART. Participants expressed a preference for ART over M/XDR-TB treatment as a result of greater tolerability, lower pill burden and a commitment to ART. Treatment outcomes and the social morbidity associated with M/XDR-TB, characterised by public notification, stigma and social isolation, were perceived to be worse than with HIV. Poor communication, low patient involvement and provider supervision of treatment exacerbated participants' negative experiences with TB care. To improve adherence, it is critical that new regimens for drug-resistant TB be developed with better efficacy, lower pill burden and fewer adverse effects. For the first time, such improved regimens are on the horizon. In parallel and equally important is the implementation of a cohesive approach that promotes patient involvement, empowerment and treatment literacy for HIV and for TB.

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

4.4
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