Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(7): 1164-1172, 2023 04 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36458857

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Household contact investigation for people newly diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) is poorly implemented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Conditional cash incentives may improve uptake. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial of 2 TB contact investigation approaches (household-based and incentive-based) in 28 public primary care clinics in South Africa. Each clinic used 1 approach for 18 months, followed by a 6-month washout period, after which the opposite approach was used. Fourteen clinics were randomized to each approach. In the household-based arm, we conducted TB screening and testing of contacts at the household. In the incentive-based arm, both index patients and ≤10 of their close contacts (either within or outside the household) were given small cash incentives for presenting to study clinics for TB screening. The primary outcome was the number of people with incident TB who were diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics. RESULTS: From July 2016 to January 2020, we randomized 28 clinics to each study arm, and enrolled 782 index TB patients and 1882 contacts in the household-based arm and 780 index patients and 1940 contacts in the incentive-based arm. A total of 1413 individuals started on TB treatment in the household-based arm and 1510 in the incentive-based arm. The adjusted incidence rate ratio of TB treatment initiation in the incentive- versus household-based arms was 1.05 (95% confidence interval: .97-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Incentive-based contact investigation for TB has similar effectiveness to traditional household-based approaches and may be a viable alternative or complementary approach to household-based investigation.


Asunto(s)
Motivación , Tuberculosis , Humanos , Trazado de Contacto , Sudáfrica/epidemiología , Tuberculosis/diagnóstico , Tuberculosis/epidemiología , Tuberculosis/prevención & control , Tamizaje Masivo
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(6): 957-964, 2022 03 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34212181

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Providing incentives to screen close contacts for tuberculosis (TB) is an alternative to household-based contact investigation. We aimed to characterize patients and contexts where this incentive-based strategy might be preferred. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial of TB contact investigation in Limpopo District, South Africa, conducted between 2016 and 2020. Twenty-eight clinics were randomly allocated to household-based vs incentive-based contact investigation. In the incentive-based arm, index participants and contacts received transport reimbursement and incentives for TB screening and microbiological diagnosis of contacts. We estimated differences in mean number of contacts per index participant with household-based vs incentive-based contact investigation overall and within subgroups of index participants. RESULTS: A total of 3776 contacts (1903 in the incentive-based and 1873 in the household-based arm) were referred by 2501 index participants. A higher proportion of contacts in the incentive-based than household-based arm were adults (72% vs 59%), reported chronic TB symptoms (25% vs 16%) or ever smoking (23% vs 11%). Index participants who walked or bicycled to a clinic referred 1.03 more contacts per index (95% confidence interval [CI], .48 to 1.57) through incentive-based than household-based investigation. Index participants living with >5 household members referred 0.48 more contacts per index (95% CI, .03 to .94) through household-based than incentive-based investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to household-based investigation, incentive-based investigation identifies contacts likely at higher risk for active TB. Incentive-based investigation may be more appropriate for index participants who can easily access clinics, versus household-based investigation for patients with large households. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02808507.


Asunto(s)
Trazado de Contacto , Tuberculosis , Adulto , Composición Familiar , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo , Sudáfrica/epidemiología , Tuberculosis/diagnóstico , Tuberculosis/epidemiología , Tuberculosis/prevención & control
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e046464, 2021 03 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33741673

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Children accessing healthcare systems represent a vulnerable population with risk factors for poor health outcomes, including vaccine-preventable diseases. We aimed to quantify missed vaccination opportunities among hospitalised children in India, and identify vaccination barriers perceived by caregivers and healthcare providers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two public-sector tertiary-care hospitals in northern India, during November 2018 and March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: We tracked 263 hospitalised children aged 1-59 months through hospital discharge, to assess vaccination status, and document catch-up vaccinations given during the hospital stay. We interviewed caregivers and healthcare providers to assess their perceptions on vaccination. OUTCOMES: Proportion of hospitalised children considered under-vaccinated for their age; proportion of missed opportunities for vaccination among under-vaccinated children who were eligible for vaccination; and vaccine coverage by antigen. RESULTS: We found that 65.4% (172/263) of hospitalised children were under-vaccinated for their age when they presented to the hospital. Among under-vaccinated children, 61.0% were less than 4 months old, and 55.6% reported prior contact with a health facility for a sick visit. The proportion of under-vaccinated children in hospitals were higher compared with the general population as indicated by regional vaccination coverage data. Among under-vaccinated children who were tracked till discharge, 98.1% (158/161) remained incompletely vaccinated at discharge and were considered 'missed opportunities for vaccination'. Perceived vaccination contraindications that are not part of established contraindications included in national and international guidelines was the most common reason for healthcare providers not to vaccinate children during hospital stay. Among caregivers of under-vaccinated children, 90.1% reported being comfortable having their children vaccinated while they were sick, if recommended by the healthcare provider. CONCLUSION: This pilot study confirmed that hospitalised sick children had substantial missed vaccination opportunities. Addressing these opportunities through concerted actions involving caregivers, healthcare providers and healthcare systems can improve overall vaccination coverage.


Asunto(s)
Instituciones de Salud , Vacunación , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , India , Lactante , Proyectos Piloto
4.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr ; 85(5): 525-529, 2020 12 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33031156

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Many individuals at risk for HIV may be reached through active TB case finding interventions in areas with highly prevalent co-epidemics of TB/HIV. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cluster-randomized trial of 2 TB case finding strategies: facility-based screening and contact investigation of newly identified TB cases. In both arms, on-site rapid HIV testing was offered to all contacts older than 18 months who did not self-report HIV-positive status. Those who were HIV infected were referred appropriately. All contacts 15 years and older were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Among 2179 contacts identified, 50% (1092) accepted HIV testing and counselling, of whom 6.3% (68) tested HIV-positive. Contacts who were unemployed [adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04 to 1.25], had not been to a clinic (aPR 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.18) or HIV tested (aPR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.39) 6 months before, and those reporting gastrointestinal symptoms (aPR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.52) and genitourinary symptoms (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.45) were significantly associated with accepting HIV testing. Women [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.19, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.81], individuals with a past history of tuberculosis (aOR 1.96, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.14), and those not HIV tested 6 months before (aOR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.28 to 3.79) were significantly associated with testing HIV-positive. CONCLUSION: Offering HIV testing in the context of active tuberculosis case finding represents an opportunity to identify a large proportion of previously undiagnosed individuals with HIV in a population that might otherwise not seek testing.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH/diagnóstico , Tuberculosis Pulmonar/complicaciones , Adolescente , Adulto , Coinfección/diagnóstico , Coinfección/microbiología , Coinfección/virología , Femenino , Infecciones por VIH/complicaciones , Humanos , Masculino , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Sudáfrica/epidemiología , Tuberculosis Pulmonar/diagnóstico , Tuberculosis Pulmonar/virología , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA