RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major public health problem, particularly in low and middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to consensualise improvement actions for the Tuberculosis Control Programme of the Pernambuco state (SPTC), Brazil. METHODS: Firstly, a preliminary workshop was conducted with experts (n = 8), including key stakeholders and health professionals, to select structure and process indicators pertaining to the tuberculosis control programme. Then, an e-Delphi was carried out with a purposive sample of 11 local TB experts. The first-round questionnaire was comprised of 19 open-ended questions on possible improvement actions, based on programme indicators obtained in the previous stage. In the second-round experts rated each action for relevance and feasibility, using a four-point scale. In the last round the participants rated the actions again, in the light of group's answers. We used published criteria to define consensus at the outset of the study. KEY FINDINGS: Eighty-nine improvement actions achieved a high degree of consensus in both feasibility and relevance in round three. Eighty-six actions were grouped under 19 structure and process indicators, while three were consideredcross-sectional in scope (i.e. related to more than one indicator). Ten out of the 86 actions obtained at least 70% of ratings on the highest score of the scale both for relevance and feasibility. These included: "Request and availability of sputum pots can be made by any health professional in the health unit". CONCLUSIONS: The wide array of actions obtained in this Delphi represent a resource from which local SPTC services can select the actions most suitable for each context. The ten most relevant and feasible actions represent a particularly useful starting point to streamline change and potentially improve programme indicators.
RESUMO
The study objective is to describe patients and professionals' perspectives on the Tuberculosis Control Program (PCT) in Recife, Brazil, contributing to the program evaluation. A cross-sectional study was conducted in three purposively selected sites, representing the three levels of care in the public health system. All eligible PCT patients in sites A, B and C were invited to participate (n = 123). Physicians, nurses, pharmacists and community health agents providing care to PCT patients in these sites, plus their managers, were purposively selected. Data were collected by means of interviews with 44 patients and a questionnaire to 24 professionals. Instruments encompassed previously published items to capture stakeholders' perspectives (16 and 12 closed-questions, respectively), grouped into categories. The overall evaluation by patients was unsatisfactory (median score 35%; third quartile below 50%; interquartile range 21.9%). Analysis of scores by categories showed that opinions about organizational accessibility were significantly worse than about economic and geographical accessibility, taken together. Overall the median score attributed by professionals was 52% (third quartile below 65%). Professionals had significantly worse opinions about diagnosis, clinical and laboratory assistance. Patients and professionals' perspectives highlight potential opportunities for improvement. Our findings can be used by managers as a starting point for shared decision-making, potentially contributing to a better performance of the PCT in Recife and, consequently, reducing the risk posed by tuberculosis.
