Mobile phone interventions for tuberculosis should ensure access to mobile phones to enhance equity - a prospective, observational cohort study in Peruvian shantytowns.

OBJECTIVES: Mobile phone interventions have been advocated for tuberculosis care, but little is known about access of target populations to mobile phones. We studied mobile phone access among patients with tuberculosis, focusing on vulnerable patients and patients who later had adverse treatment outcomes. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study in Callao, Peru, we recruited and interviewed 2584 patients with tuberculosis between 2007 and 2013 and followed them until 2016 for adverse treatment outcomes using national treatment registers. Subsequently, we recruited a further 622 patients between 2016 and 2017. Data were analysed using logistic regression and by calculating relative risks (RR). RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2013, the proportion of the general population of Peru without mobile phone access averaged 7.8% but for patients with tuberculosis was 18% (P < 0.001). Patients without access were more likely to hold a lower socioeconomic position, suffer from food insecurity and be older than 50 years (all P < 0.01). Compared to patients with mobile phone access, patients without access at recruitment were more likely to subsequently have incomplete treatment (20% vs. 13%, RR = 1.5; P = 0.001) or an adverse treatment outcome (29% vs. 23% RR = 1.3; P = 0.006). Between 2016 and 2017, the proportion of patients without access dropped to 8.9% overall, but remained the same (18%) as in 2012 among the poorest third. CONCLUSION: Access to mobile phones among patients with tuberculosis is insufficient, and rarest in patients who are poorer and later have adverse treatment outcomes. Thus, mobile phone interventions to improve tuberculosis care may be least accessed by the priority populations for whom they are intended. Such interventions should ensure access to mobile phones to enhance equity.

A randomized controlled study of socioeconomic support to enhance tuberculosis prevention and treatment, Peru.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of socioeconomic support on tuberculosis preventive therapy initiation in household contacts of tuberculosis patients and on treatment success in patients. METHODS: A non-blinded, household-randomized, controlled study was performed between February 2014 and June 2015 in 32 shanty towns in Peru. It included patients being treated for tuberculosis and their household contacts. Households were randomly assigned to either the standard of care provided by Peru's national tuberculosis programme (control arm) or the same standard of care plus socioeconomic support (intervention arm). Socioeconomic support comprised conditional cash transfers up to 230 United States dollars per household, community meetings and household visits. Rates of tuberculosis preventive therapy initiation and treatment success (i.e. cure or treatment completion) were compared in intervention and control arms. FINDINGS: Overall, 282 of 312 (90%) households agreed to participate: 135 in the intervention arm and 147 in the control arm. There were 410 contacts younger than 20 years: 43% in the intervention arm initiated tuberculosis preventive therapy versus 25% in the control arm (adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 2.2; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.1-4.1). An intention-to-treat analysis showed that treatment was successful in 64% (87/135) of patients in the intervention arm versus 53% (78/147) in the control arm (unadjusted OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.0-2.6). These improvements were equitable, being independent of household poverty. CONCLUSION: A tuberculosis-specific, socioeconomic support intervention increased uptake of tuberculosis preventive therapy and tuberculosis treatment success and is being evaluated in the Community Randomized Evaluation of a Socioeconomic Intervention to Prevent TB (CRESIPT) project.

The economic effects of supporting tuberculosis-affected households in Peru.

The End TB Strategy mandates that no tuberculosis (TB)-affected households face catastrophic costs due to TB. However, evidence is limited to evaluate socioeconomic support to achieve this change in policy and practice. The objective of the present study was to investigate the economic effects of a TB-specific socioeconomic intervention.The setting was 32 shantytown communities in Peru. The participants were from households of consecutive TB patients throughout TB treatment administered by the national TB programme. The intervention consisted of social support through household visits and community meetings, and economic support through cash transfers conditional upon TB screening in household contacts, adhering to TB treatment/chemoprophylaxis and engaging with social support. Data were collected to assess TB-affected household costs. Patient interviews were conducted at treatment initiation and then monthly for 6 months.From February 2014 to June 2015, 312 households were recruited, of which 135 were randomised to receive the intervention. Cash transfer total value averaged US$173 (3.5% of TB-affected households' average annual income) and mitigated 20% of households' TB-related costs. Households randomised to receive the intervention were less likely to incur catastrophic costs (30% (95% CI 22-38%) versus 42% (95% CI 34-51%)). The mitigation impact was higher among poorer households.The TB-specific socioeconomic intervention reduced catastrophic costs and was accessible to poorer households. Socioeconomic support and mitigating catastrophic costs are integral to the End TB strategy, and our findings inform implementation of these new policies.