Barriers to engagement in the care cascade for tuberculosis disease in India: A systematic review of quantitative studies.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-28 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004409
Tulip A Jhaveri, Disha Jhaveri, Amith Galivanche, Maya Lubeck-Schricker, Dominic Voehler, Mei Chung, Pruthu Thekkur, Vineet Chadha, Ruvandhi Nathavitharana, Ajay M V Kumar, Hemant Deepak Shewade, Katherine Powers, Kenneth H Mayer, Jessica E Haberer, Paul Bain, Madhukar Pai, Srinath Satyanarayana, Ramnath Subbaraman
{"title":"Barriers to engagement in the care cascade for tuberculosis disease in India: A systematic review of quantitative studies.","authors":"Tulip A Jhaveri, Disha Jhaveri, Amith Galivanche, Maya Lubeck-Schricker, Dominic Voehler, Mei Chung, Pruthu Thekkur, Vineet Chadha, Ruvandhi Nathavitharana, Ajay M V Kumar, Hemant Deepak Shewade, Katherine Powers, Kenneth H Mayer, Jessica E Haberer, Paul Bain, Madhukar Pai, Srinath Satyanarayana, Ramnath Subbaraman","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>India accounts for about one-quarter of people contracting tuberculosis (TB) disease annually and nearly one-third of TB deaths globally. Many Indians do not navigate all care cascade stages to receive TB treatment and achieve recurrence-free survival. Guided by a population/exposure/comparison/outcomes (PECO) framework, we report findings of a systematic review to identify factors contributing to unfavorable outcomes across each care cascade gap for TB disease in India.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We defined care cascade gaps as comprising people with confirmed or presumptive TB who did not: start the TB diagnostic workup (Gap 1), complete the workup (Gap 2), start treatment (Gap 3), achieve treatment success (Gap 4), or achieve TB recurrence-free survival (Gap 5). Three systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to August 14, 2023 were conducted. We identified articles evaluating factors associated with unfavorable outcomes for each gap (reported as adjusted odds, relative risk, or hazard ratios) and, among people experiencing unfavorable outcomes, reasons for these outcomes (reported as proportions), with specific quality or risk of bias criteria for each gap. Findings were organized into person-, family-, and society-, or health system-related factors, using a social-ecological framework. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes across multiple cascade stages included: male sex, older age, poverty-related factors, lower symptom severity or duration, undernutrition, alcohol use, smoking, and distrust of (or dissatisfaction with) health services. People previously treated for TB were more likely to seek care and engage in the diagnostic workup (Gaps 1 and 2) but more likely to suffer pretreatment loss to follow-up (Gap 3) and unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4), especially those who were lost to follow-up during their prior treatment. For individual care cascade gaps, multiple studies highlighted lack of TB knowledge and structural barriers (e.g., transportation challenges) as contributing to lack of care-seeking for TB symptoms (Gap 1, 14 studies); lack of access to diagnostics (e.g., X-ray), non-identification of eligible people for testing, and failure of providers to communicate concern for TB as contributing to non-completion of the diagnostic workup (Gap 2, 17 studies); stigma, poor recording of patient contact information by providers, and early death from diagnostic delays as contributing to pretreatment loss to follow-up (Gap 3, 15 studies); and lack of TB knowledge, stigma, depression, and medication adverse effects as contributing to unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4, 86 studies). Medication nonadherence contributed to unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4) and TB recurrence (Gap 5, 14 studies). Limitations include lack of meta-analyses due to the heterogeneity of findings and limited generalizability to some Indian regions, given the country's diverse population.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review illuminates common patterns of risk that shape outcomes for Indians with TB, while highlighting knowledge gaps-particularly regarding TB care for children or in the private sector-to guide future research. Findings may inform targeting of support services to people with TB who have higher risk of poor outcomes and inform multicomponent interventions to close gaps in the care cascade.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11166313/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004409","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: India accounts for about one-quarter of people contracting tuberculosis (TB) disease annually and nearly one-third of TB deaths globally. Many Indians do not navigate all care cascade stages to receive TB treatment and achieve recurrence-free survival. Guided by a population/exposure/comparison/outcomes (PECO) framework, we report findings of a systematic review to identify factors contributing to unfavorable outcomes across each care cascade gap for TB disease in India.

Methods and findings: We defined care cascade gaps as comprising people with confirmed or presumptive TB who did not: start the TB diagnostic workup (Gap 1), complete the workup (Gap 2), start treatment (Gap 3), achieve treatment success (Gap 4), or achieve TB recurrence-free survival (Gap 5). Three systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to August 14, 2023 were conducted. We identified articles evaluating factors associated with unfavorable outcomes for each gap (reported as adjusted odds, relative risk, or hazard ratios) and, among people experiencing unfavorable outcomes, reasons for these outcomes (reported as proportions), with specific quality or risk of bias criteria for each gap. Findings were organized into person-, family-, and society-, or health system-related factors, using a social-ecological framework. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes across multiple cascade stages included: male sex, older age, poverty-related factors, lower symptom severity or duration, undernutrition, alcohol use, smoking, and distrust of (or dissatisfaction with) health services. People previously treated for TB were more likely to seek care and engage in the diagnostic workup (Gaps 1 and 2) but more likely to suffer pretreatment loss to follow-up (Gap 3) and unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4), especially those who were lost to follow-up during their prior treatment. For individual care cascade gaps, multiple studies highlighted lack of TB knowledge and structural barriers (e.g., transportation challenges) as contributing to lack of care-seeking for TB symptoms (Gap 1, 14 studies); lack of access to diagnostics (e.g., X-ray), non-identification of eligible people for testing, and failure of providers to communicate concern for TB as contributing to non-completion of the diagnostic workup (Gap 2, 17 studies); stigma, poor recording of patient contact information by providers, and early death from diagnostic delays as contributing to pretreatment loss to follow-up (Gap 3, 15 studies); and lack of TB knowledge, stigma, depression, and medication adverse effects as contributing to unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4, 86 studies). Medication nonadherence contributed to unfavorable treatment outcomes (Gap 4) and TB recurrence (Gap 5, 14 studies). Limitations include lack of meta-analyses due to the heterogeneity of findings and limited generalizability to some Indian regions, given the country's diverse population.

Conclusions: This systematic review illuminates common patterns of risk that shape outcomes for Indians with TB, while highlighting knowledge gaps-particularly regarding TB care for children or in the private sector-to guide future research. Findings may inform targeting of support services to people with TB who have higher risk of poor outcomes and inform multicomponent interventions to close gaps in the care cascade.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度结核病患者参与治疗的障碍:定量研究的系统回顾。
背景:印度每年约有四分之一的人感染结核病(TB),占全球结核病死亡人数的近三分之一。许多印度人无法通过所有治疗阶段接受结核病治疗并获得无复发生存。在人群/暴露/比较/结果(PECO)框架的指导下,我们报告了一项系统性研究的结果,以确定导致印度肺结核病各护理级联差距产生不利结果的因素:我们将治疗差距定义为:确诊或推定肺结核患者未开始肺结核诊断工作(差距 1)、未完成诊断工作(差距 2)、未开始治疗(差距 3)、未获得治疗成功(差距 4)或未获得无肺结核复发生存(差距 5)。我们对 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 8 月 14 日期间的 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 进行了三次系统检索。我们确定了评估与每个差距的不利结果相关的因素(以调整后的几率、相对风险或危险比的形式报告)的文章,以及在出现不利结果的人群中,出现这些结果的原因(以比例的形式报告)的文章,并确定了每个差距的具体质量或偏倚风险标准。研究结果采用社会生态框架,按个人、家庭、社会或健康系统相关因素进行分类。与多个级联阶段的不利结果相关的因素包括:男性、年龄较大、与贫困相关的因素、症状严重程度较低或持续时间较短、营养不良、饮酒、吸烟以及对医疗服务的不信任(或不满意)。曾接受过结核病治疗的患者更有可能寻求医疗服务并参与诊断工作(差距 1 和 2),但更有可能在治疗前失去随访机会(差距 3)和出现不利的治疗结果(差距 4),尤其是那些在之前的治疗过程中失去随访机会的患者。关于个别护理差距,多项研究强调,缺乏结核病知识和结构性障碍(如交通不便)是导致出现结核病症状时不寻求护理的原因(差距 1,14 项研究);缺乏获得诊断(如 X 光)的途径、无法识别结核病患者(差距 2,14 项研究);以及缺乏获得治疗的途径(差距 3,14 项研究)、缺乏诊断途径(如 X 光)、无法识别符合检测条件的人群以及医疗服务提供者未能传达对结核病的关注,是导致未完成诊断工作的原因(差距 2,17 项研究);耻辱感、医疗服务提供者对患者联系信息的记录不全以及诊断延误导致的早期死亡,是导致治疗前失去随访的原因(差距 3,15 项研究);缺乏结核病知识、耻辱感、抑郁以及药物不良反应,是导致治疗结果不理想的原因(差距 4,86 项研究)。不坚持用药导致治疗效果不佳(差距 4)和结核病复发(差距 5,14 项研究)。局限性包括:由于研究结果的异质性,缺乏荟萃分析;由于印度人口的多样性,对印度某些地区的推广性有限:本系统综述揭示了影响印度肺结核患者治疗结果的常见风险模式,同时强调了知识差距--尤其是有关儿童或私营部门的肺结核治疗--以指导未来的研究。研究结果可为针对结果不佳风险较高的肺结核患者提供支持服务提供依据,并为多成分干预措施提供信息,以弥补治疗过程中的不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
期刊最新文献
Impact of active case finding for tuberculosis with mass chest X-ray screening in Glasgow, Scotland, 1950-1963: An epidemiological analysis of historical data. Safety and tolerability of tegoprubart in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A Phase 2A clinical trial. Incidence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma based on risk stratification in steatotic liver disease for precision medicine: A real-world longitudinal nationwide study. Leveraging behavioral economics strategies to close gaps in biomedical HIV prevention. The effect of protecting women against economic shocks to fight HIV in Cameroon, Africa: The POWER randomised controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1