Challenges and Barriers Faced by People with TB and Healthcare Workers Providing TB Care and Management - A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In tuberculosis (TB) care and management, there are practical challenges existing at the patient-provider level leading to implementation barriers at the primary care level. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study is to explore the challenges and barriers faced by people with TB and health-care workers in TB care and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was done as a part of a community intervention study between November 2021 and December 2022. Twenty interviews were taken with treatment for TB (n = 7) and health-care personnel (n = 13). Health-care personnel include nursing staff, medical officers, laboratory technicians, community health workers, and medical personnel from tertiary care hospital. Participants were recruited across all levels of health-care systems. Interviews were carried out in the Hindi language, audio recorded, and translated to English. Participants were asked about their experiences of challenges and barriers faced during TB care and management. Qualitative data were coded, and thematic analysis was done manually. RESULTS: The challenges and barriers at the level of people with TB were issues with communication between providers and people with TB, out-of-pocket expenditure, poor adherence to medicines, lack of proper diet, gender issues, and stigma. The challenges and barriers at the level of health-care providers were a lack of infrastructure and logistics, lack of awareness, COVID-19-related issues, lack of workforce, and technical issues. CONCLUSION: Communication between providers and people with TB must be improved to improve the drug adherence and satisfaction of the end user. Proper funding must be provided for the TB programs. People with TB must be counseled properly regarding the free health care services available near their homes to prevent out-of-pocket expenditure. These will help in fast-tracking the elimination of TB.

Application of Indian Diabetic Risk Score (IDRS) and Community Based Assessment Checklist (CBAC) as Metabolic Syndrome prediction tools.

BACKGROUND: Indian Diabetic Risk Score (IDRS) and Community Based Assessment Checklist (CBAC) are easy, inexpensive, and non-invasive tools that can be used to screen people for Metabolic Syndrome (Met S). The study aimed to explore the prediction abilities of IDRS and CBAC tools for Met S. METHODS: All the people of age ≥30 years attending the selected rural health centers were screened for Met S. We used the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria to diagnose the Met S. ROC curves were plotted by taking Met S as dependent variables, and IDRS and CBAC scores as independent/prediction variables. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), Positive and Negative Predictive Value (PPV and NPV), Likelihood Ratio for positive and negative tests (LR+ and LR-), Accuracy, and Youden's index were calculated for different IDRS and CBAC scores cut-offs. Data were analyzed using SPSS v.23 and MedCalc v.20.111. RESULTS: A total of 942 participants underwent the screening process. Out of them, 59 (6.4%, 95% CI: 4.90-8.12) were found to have Met S. Area Under the Curve (AUC) for IDRS in predicting Met S was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.67-0.79), with 76.3% (64.0%-85.3%) sensitivity and 54.6% (51.2%-57.8%) specificity at the cut-off of ≥60. For the CBAC score, AUC was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.66-0.79), with 84.7% (73.5%-91.7%) sensitivity and 48.8% (45.5%-52.1%) specificity at the cut-off of ≥4 (Youden's Index, 2.1). The AUCs of both parameters (IDRS and CBAC scores) were statistically significant. There was no significant difference (p = 0.833) in the AUCs of IDRS and CBAC [Difference between AUC = 0.00571]. CONCLUSION: The current study provides scientific evidence that both IDRS and CBAC have almost 73% prediction ability for Met S. Though CBAC holds relatively greater sensitivity (84.7%) than IDRS (76.3%), the difference in prediction abilities is not statistically significant. The prediction abilities of IDRS and CBAC found in this study are inadequate to qualify as Met S screening tools.