Measuring leprosy case detection delay and associated factors in Indonesia: a community-based study.

BACKGROUND: Leprosy is a public health burden in Indonesia with a high number of new cases every year and a high proportion of disability among new cases. Case detection delay (CDD) can contribute to ongoing transmission and increased disability chances among leprosy patients. This study aimed to establish the CDD of leprosy and the factors associated with detection delay in Indonesia. METHOD: Community-based study with a cross-sectional design. Data were collected through interviews about sociodemographic and behavioral factors, anticipated stigma, and duration of CDD. Leprosy classification and case detection methods were obtained from health service records. A random sample was taken of 126 leprosy patients registered between 1st October 2020 and 31st March 2022 in the Tegal regency in the Central Java Province. Data were analysed by descriptive and analytical statistics using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The mean CDD, patient delay, and health system delay were 13.0 months, 9.7 months, and 3.2 months, respectively. Factors associated with longer CDD are younger age (below 35 years), male, found through passive case detection, and not having a family member with leprosy. Factors associated with longer patient delay were being younger (below 35 years), being male, not having a family member with leprosy, and anticipated stigma of leprosy. It was not possible to reliably identify factors associated with health system delay. CONCLUSION: CDD in leprosy should be reduced in Indonesia. The Indonesian National Leprosy Control Program (NLCP) is advised to adopt an integrated intervention programme combining active case detection with targeted health education to reduce CDD and thereby preventing disabilities in people affected by leprosy.

Delayed detection of leprosy cases: A systematic review of healthcare-related factors.

BACKGROUND: In new leprosy cases, grade 2 disability (G2D) is still a public health burden worldwide. It is often associated with the delayed leprosy diagnoses that healthcare systems should play a crucial role in preventing. The aim of this systematic review was to identify healthcare factors related to delays in case detection in leprosy. METHODS: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) was used as a guideline in this research. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) with reference code CRD42020189274. Data was collected from five electronic databases: Embase, Medline All Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the WHO Global Health Library. RESULTS: After applying the selection criteria for original empirical studies, and after removing duplicates, we included 20 papers from 4313 records. They had been conducted in ten countries and published between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2021. We identified three categories of healthcare factors related to delayed case. 1) Structural factors, such as i) financial and logistic issues, and geographical circumstances (which we classified as barriers); ii) Health service organization and management including the level of decentralization (classified as facilitators). 2) Health service factors, such as problems or shortages involving referral centers, healthcare personnel, and case-detection methods. 3) Intermediate factors, such as misdiagnosis, higher numbers of consultations before diagnosis, and inappropriate healthcare services visited by people with leprosy. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in leprosy case detection are due mainly to misdiagnosis. It is crucial to improve the training and capacity of healthcare staff. To avoid misdiagnosis and reduce detection delays, national leprosy control programs should ensure the sustainability of leprosy control within integrated health services.

Correction: The role of perceptions and knowledge of leprosy in the elimination of leprosy: A baseline study in Fatehpur district, northern India.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007302.].

Changing perception and improving knowledge of leprosy: An intervention study in Uttar Pradesh, India.

INTRODUCTION: Since ancient times leprosy has had a negative perception, resulting in stigmatization. To improve the lives of persons affected by leprosy, these negative perceptions need to change. The aim of this study is to evaluate interventions to change perceptions and improve knowledge of leprosy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a pre-post intervention study in Fatehpur and Chandauli districts, Uttar Pradesh, India. Based on six steps of quality intervention development (6SQuID) two interventions were designed: (1) posters that provided information about leprosy and challenged misconceptions, and (2) meetings with persons affected by leprosy, community members and influential people in the community. The effect of the interventions was evaluated in a mixed-methods design; in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and questionnaires containing a knowledge measure (KAP), two perception measures (EMIC-CSS, SDS) and an intervention evaluation tool. 1067 participants were included in Survey 1 and 843 in Survey 2. The interventions were effective in increasing knowledge of all participant groups, and in changing community and personal attitudes of close contacts and community members (changes of 19%, 24% and 13% on the maximum KAP, EMIC-CSS and SDS scores respectively, p<0.05). In Survey 1, 13% of participants had adequate knowledge of leprosy versus 53% in Survey 2. Responses showed stigmatizing community attitudes in 86% (Survey 1) and 61% (Survey 2) of participants and negative personal attitudes in 37% (Survey 1) and 19% (Survey 2). The number of posters seen was associated with KAP, EMIC-CSS and SDS scores in Survey 2 (p<0.001). In addition, during eight post-intervention focus group discussions and 48 interviews many participants indicated that the perception of leprosy in the community had changed. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Contextualized posters and community meetings were effective in changing the perception of leprosy and in increasing leprosy-related knowledge. We recommend studying the long-term effect of the interventions, also on behavior.

Leprosy perceptions and knowledge in endemic districts in India and Indonesia: Differences and commonalities.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding leprosy differ in endemic countries can help us develop targeted educational and behavioural change interventions. This study aimed to examine the differences and commonalities in and determinants of knowledge, attitudes, practices and fears regarding leprosy in endemic districts in India and Indonesia. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods design was used. Persons affected by leprosy, their close contacts, community members and health workers were included. Through interview-administered questionnaires we assessed knowledge, attitudes, practices and fears with the KAP measure, EMIC-CSS and SDS. In addition, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. The quantitative data were analysed using stepwise multivariate regression. Determinants of knowledge and stigma that were examined included age, gender, participant type, education, occupation, knowing someone affected by leprosy and district. The qualitative data were analysed using open, inductive coding and content analysis. We administered questionnaires to 2344 participants (46% from India, 54% from Indonesia) as an interview. In addition, 110 participants were interviewed in-depth and 60 participants were included in focus group discussions. Knowledge levels were low in both countries: 88% of the participants in India and 90% of the participants in Indonesia had inadequate knowledge of leprosy. In both countries, cause, mode of transmission, early symptoms and contagiousness of leprosy was least known, and treatment and treatability of leprosy was best known. In both countries, health workers had the highest leprosy knowledge levels and community members the highest stigma levels (a mean score of up to 17.4 on the EMIC-CSS and 9.1 on the SDS). Data from the interviews indicated that people were afraid of being infected by leprosy. Local beliefs and misconceptions differed, for instance that leprosy is in the family for seven generations (Indonesia) or that leprosy is a result of karma (India). The determinants of leprosy knowledge and stigma explained 10-29% of the variability in level of knowledge and 3-10% of the variability in level of stigma. CONCLUSION: Our findings show the importance of investigating the perceptions regarding leprosy prior to educational interventions in communities: even though knowledge levels were similar, local beliefs and misconceptions differed per setting. The potential determinants we included in our study explained very little of the variability in level of knowledge and stigma and should be explored further. Detailed knowledge of local knowledge gaps, beliefs and fears can help tailor health education to local circumstances.

The role of perceptions and knowledge of leprosy in the elimination of leprosy: A baseline study in Fatehpur district, northern India.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of new interventions to prevent leprosy, such as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) given to contacts of leprosy patients, it is necessary to update our understanding of knowledge and perception of leprosy among the populations where these interventions will be introduced, in order to tailor communication optimally to the current situation. This study is a baseline study of the PEP++ project and aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding leprosy in Fatehpur, India. METHODOLOGY: The study used a community-based cross-sectional design with a mixed-methods approach. We assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices with the KAP measure, and stigma with the Explanatory Model Interview Catalogue community stigma scale (EMIC-CSS) and the Social Distance Scale (SDS). In addition, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with all participant groups. The quantitative data were analysed using stepwise multivariate regression. The qualitative data were analysed using open, inductive coding and content analysis. FINDINGS: A total of 446 participants were included in the study: 100 persons affected by leprosy, 111 close contacts, 185 community members and 50 health care workers. In addition, 24 in-depth interviews were conducted and 35 people were included in focus group discussions. 12.5% of the participants had adequate knowledge of leprosy, while 22% had poor knowledge. Knowledge on cause (answered correctly by 10% of the participants), mode of transmission (5%) and symptoms of leprosy (16%) was especially poor. The mean EMIC-CSS score was 15.3 (95%CI 14.6-16.0) and mean SDS score 7.2 (95%CI 6.6-7.8). Better knowledge of leprosy was associated with lower levels of social distance towards persons affected by leprosy. CONCLUSION: This study revealed poor knowledge regarding leprosy and high levels of stigma and fear and desire to keep social distance towards persons affected by leprosy. Community education that takes cultural beliefs, knowledge gaps and fears into consideration could improve knowledge, reduce misconceptions and positively influence the perception of leprosy.