对印度南部结核病护理差异化护理模式的混合方法评估。

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Public Health Research Pub Date : 2023-09-20 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1177/22799036231197176
Reynold Washington, Satyanarayana Ramanaik, Karthikeyan Kumarasamy, Prarthana B Sreenivasa, Rajesham Adepu, Ramesh Chandra Reddy, Amar Shah, Reuben Swamickan, Bala Krishna Maryala, Aparna Mukherjee, Ashwini Pujar, Vikas Panibatla, Mohan Harnahalli Lakkappa, Rajaram Subramanian Potty
{"title":"对印度南部结核病护理差异化护理模式的混合方法评估。","authors":"Reynold Washington,&nbsp;Satyanarayana Ramanaik,&nbsp;Karthikeyan Kumarasamy,&nbsp;Prarthana B Sreenivasa,&nbsp;Rajesham Adepu,&nbsp;Ramesh Chandra Reddy,&nbsp;Amar Shah,&nbsp;Reuben Swamickan,&nbsp;Bala Krishna Maryala,&nbsp;Aparna Mukherjee,&nbsp;Ashwini Pujar,&nbsp;Vikas Panibatla,&nbsp;Mohan Harnahalli Lakkappa,&nbsp;Rajaram Subramanian Potty","doi":"10.1177/22799036231197176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>India's National TB Elimination Program emphasizes patient-centered care to improve TB treatment outcomes. We describe the lessons learned from the implementation of a differentiated care model for TB care among individuals diagnosed with active TB.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Used mixed methods to pilot the Differentiated Care Model. Community health workers (CHWs) conducted a risk and needs assessment among individuals who were recently began TB treatment. Individuals identified with specific factors that are associated with poor treatment adherence were provided education, counseling, and linked to treatment and support services. Examined changes in TB treatment outcomes between the two cohorts of individuals on TB treatment before and after the intervention. We used qualitative research methods to explore the experiences of patients, family members, and front-line TB workers with the implementation of the DCM pilot.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CHWs were adept at the identification of individuals with risks to non-adherence. However, only a few provided differentiated care, as envisioned. There was no significant change in the TB treatment outcomes between the two cohorts of patients examined. CHWs' ability to provide differentiated care on a scale was limited by the short duration of implementation, their inadequate skills to manage co-morbidities, and the suboptimal support at the field level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is feasible for a cadre of well-trained front-line workers, mentored and supported by counselors and doctors, to provide differentiated care to those at risk for unfavorable TB treatment outcomes. However, differentiated care must be implemented on a scale for a duration that allows a change from the conventional practice of front-line workers, in order to influence the outcomes of population-level TB treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":45958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d5/68/10.1177_22799036231197176.PMC10515523.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A mixed methods evaluation of a differentiated care model piloted for TB care in south India.\",\"authors\":\"Reynold Washington,&nbsp;Satyanarayana Ramanaik,&nbsp;Karthikeyan Kumarasamy,&nbsp;Prarthana B Sreenivasa,&nbsp;Rajesham Adepu,&nbsp;Ramesh Chandra Reddy,&nbsp;Amar Shah,&nbsp;Reuben Swamickan,&nbsp;Bala Krishna Maryala,&nbsp;Aparna Mukherjee,&nbsp;Ashwini Pujar,&nbsp;Vikas Panibatla,&nbsp;Mohan Harnahalli Lakkappa,&nbsp;Rajaram Subramanian Potty\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22799036231197176\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>India's National TB Elimination Program emphasizes patient-centered care to improve TB treatment outcomes. We describe the lessons learned from the implementation of a differentiated care model for TB care among individuals diagnosed with active TB.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Used mixed methods to pilot the Differentiated Care Model. Community health workers (CHWs) conducted a risk and needs assessment among individuals who were recently began TB treatment. Individuals identified with specific factors that are associated with poor treatment adherence were provided education, counseling, and linked to treatment and support services. Examined changes in TB treatment outcomes between the two cohorts of individuals on TB treatment before and after the intervention. We used qualitative research methods to explore the experiences of patients, family members, and front-line TB workers with the implementation of the DCM pilot.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The CHWs were adept at the identification of individuals with risks to non-adherence. However, only a few provided differentiated care, as envisioned. There was no significant change in the TB treatment outcomes between the two cohorts of patients examined. CHWs' ability to provide differentiated care on a scale was limited by the short duration of implementation, their inadequate skills to manage co-morbidities, and the suboptimal support at the field level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is feasible for a cadre of well-trained front-line workers, mentored and supported by counselors and doctors, to provide differentiated care to those at risk for unfavorable TB treatment outcomes. However, differentiated care must be implemented on a scale for a duration that allows a change from the conventional practice of front-line workers, in order to influence the outcomes of population-level TB treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Health Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d5/68/10.1177_22799036231197176.PMC10515523.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Health Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22799036231197176\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22799036231197176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:印度国家结核病消除计划强调以患者为中心的护理,以改善结核病治疗效果。我们介绍了在被诊断为活动性结核病的个体中实施差异化结核病护理模式的经验教训。设计和方法:使用混合方法试点差异化护理模式。社区卫生工作者对最近开始接受结核病治疗的个人进行了风险和需求评估。对被确定为与治疗依从性差相关的特定因素的个人进行了教育、咨询,并与治疗和支持服务联系起来。研究了干预前后两组接受结核病治疗的个体结核病治疗结果的变化。我们使用定性研究方法来探索患者、家庭成员和一线结核病工作者在DCM试点实施中的经验。结果:CHW善于识别有不依从性风险的个体。然而,正如设想的那样,只有少数人提供差别化护理。两组受试患者的结核病治疗结果没有显著变化。CHW提供大规模差异化护理的能力受到实施时间短、管理合并症技能不足以及实地支持不理想的限制。结论:一支训练有素的一线工作者队伍,在辅导员和医生的指导和支持下,为那些有不良结核病治疗结果风险的人提供差异化护理是可行的。然而,必须在一定时间内实施差异化护理,以改变一线工作者的传统做法,从而影响人群水平结核病治疗的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A mixed methods evaluation of a differentiated care model piloted for TB care in south India.

Background: India's National TB Elimination Program emphasizes patient-centered care to improve TB treatment outcomes. We describe the lessons learned from the implementation of a differentiated care model for TB care among individuals diagnosed with active TB.

Design and methods: Used mixed methods to pilot the Differentiated Care Model. Community health workers (CHWs) conducted a risk and needs assessment among individuals who were recently began TB treatment. Individuals identified with specific factors that are associated with poor treatment adherence were provided education, counseling, and linked to treatment and support services. Examined changes in TB treatment outcomes between the two cohorts of individuals on TB treatment before and after the intervention. We used qualitative research methods to explore the experiences of patients, family members, and front-line TB workers with the implementation of the DCM pilot.

Results: The CHWs were adept at the identification of individuals with risks to non-adherence. However, only a few provided differentiated care, as envisioned. There was no significant change in the TB treatment outcomes between the two cohorts of patients examined. CHWs' ability to provide differentiated care on a scale was limited by the short duration of implementation, their inadequate skills to manage co-morbidities, and the suboptimal support at the field level.

Conclusions: It is feasible for a cadre of well-trained front-line workers, mentored and supported by counselors and doctors, to provide differentiated care to those at risk for unfavorable TB treatment outcomes. However, differentiated care must be implemented on a scale for a duration that allows a change from the conventional practice of front-line workers, in order to influence the outcomes of population-level TB treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health Research
Journal of Public Health Research PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Health Research (JPHR) is an online Open Access, peer-reviewed journal in the field of public health science. The aim of the journal is to stimulate debate and dissemination of knowledge in the public health field in order to improve efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of public health interventions to improve health outcomes of populations. This aim can only be achieved by adopting a global and multidisciplinary approach. The Journal of Public Health Research publishes contributions from both the “traditional'' disciplines of public health, including hygiene, epidemiology, health education, environmental health, occupational health, health policy, hospital management, health economics, law and ethics as well as from the area of new health care fields including social science, communication science, eHealth and mHealth philosophy, health technology assessment, genetics research implications, population-mental health, gender and disparity issues, global and migration-related themes. In support of this approach, JPHR strongly encourages the use of real multidisciplinary approaches and analyses in the manuscripts submitted to the journal. In addition to Original research, Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, Meta-synthesis and Perspectives and Debate articles, JPHR publishes newsworthy Brief Reports, Letters and Study Protocols related to public health and public health management activities.
期刊最新文献
Reproducibility and explainability in digital pathology: The need to make black-box artificial intelligence systems more transparent. Healthcare students are faced with the issue of the rights of people with disabilities and the quality of services: Are we training future healthcare workers who overemphasize technology? Elder abuse in the transgender community of Pakistan: A clandestine issue. Mediterranean Diet adherence, physical activity level, and quality of life in patients affected by thyroid diseases: Comparison between pre- and post-lockdown assessment. Analysis of data from a national micronutrient survey with a linear mixed model: estimates, predictions and lessons for future surveys.
×
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