4.5 Article

Common mental disorders in TB/HIV co-infected patients in Ethiopia

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-201

关键词

-

资金

  1. HIV Prevention and Control Office (HAPCO) of the Oromiya regional state in Ethiopia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The relationship between TB/HIV co-infection and common mental disorders (CMD) has been scarcely investigated. In this study, we compared the occurrence of CMD in TB/HIV co-infected and non-co-infected HIV patients in Ethiopia. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional study in three hospitals in Ethiopia from February to April, 2009. The study population consisted of 155 TB/HIV co-infected and 465 non-co-infected HIV patients. CMD was assessed through face to face interviews by trained clinical nurses using the Kessler 10 scale. Several risk factors for CMD were assessed using a structured questionnaire. Results: TB/HIV co-infected patients had significantly (p = 0.001) greater risk of CMD (63.7%) than the non-co-infected patients (46.7%). When adjusted for the effect of potential confounding variables, the odds of having CMD for TB/HIV co-infected individuals was 1.7 times the odds for non-co-infected patients [OR = 1.7, (95%CI: 1.0, 2.9)]. Individuals who had no source of income [OR = 1.7, (95%CI: 1.1, 2.8)], and day labourers [OR = 2.4, 95%CI: 1.2, 5.1)] were more likely to have CMD as compared to individuals who had a source of income and government employees respectively. Patients who perceived stigma [OR = 2.2, 95%CI: 1.5, 3.2)] and who rate their general health as poor [OR = 10.0, 95%CI: 2.8, 35.1)] had significantly greater risk of CMD than individual who did not perceive stigma or who perceived their general health to be good. Conclusion: TB/HIV control programs should develop guidelines to screen and treat CMD among TB/HIV co-infected patients. Screening programs should focus on individuals with no source of income, jobless people and day labourers.

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

4.5
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