SETTING: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. OBJECTIVE: To compare tuberculosis case management and treatment outcome between a semi-private chest clinic and a publicly run national tuberculosis programme (NTP). METHOD: Prospective, non-randomised, comparative cohort study. Case-management and treatment outcome was determined for 176 patients treated in the semi-private clinic and 326 patients treated in the NTP. RESULTS: In the semi-private clinic cohort, significantly fewer patients completed treatment and/or were cured than in the NTP cohort (48.9% vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001). Among patients with sputum-positive pulmonary TB, significantly fewer were cured in the semi-private clinic cohort compared to the NTP cohort (22.2% vs. 79.2%, P < 0.001), and treatment success was significantly lower (35.2% vs. 79.7%. P < 0.001). Adjustment for a number of potential confounders did not change these findings significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcome was considerably better in the NTP than in the semi-private clinic. The difference is not likely to be due to differences in patient characteristics or in provider knowledge. Different financial incentives for the providers in the two settings and ways of paying for services by patients are possible reasons for the observed difference in the quality of case management and treatment outcome.
SETTING: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. OBJECTIVE: To compare tuberculosis case management and treatment outcome between a semi-private chest clinic and a publicly run national tuberculosis programme (NTP). METHOD: Prospective, non-randomised, comparative cohort study. Case-management and treatment outcome was determined for 176 patients treated in the semi-private clinic and 326 patients treated in the NTP. RESULTS: In the semi-private clinic cohort, significantly fewer patients completed treatment and/or were cured than in the NTP cohort (48.9% vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001). Among patients with sputum-positive pulmonary TB, significantly fewer were cured in the semi-private clinic cohort compared to the NTP cohort (22.2% vs. 79.2%, P < 0.001), and treatment success was significantly lower (35.2% vs. 79.7%. P < 0.001). Adjustment for a number of potential confounders did not change these findings significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment outcome was considerably better in the NTP than in the semi-private clinic. The difference is not likely to be due to differences in patient characteristics or in provider knowledge. Different financial incentives for the providers in the two settings and ways of paying for services by patients are possible reasons for the observed difference in the quality of case management and treatment outcome.
Authors: Amanda Y Sun; Madhukar Pai; Henrik Salje; Srinath Satyanarayana; Sarang Deo; David W Dowdy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ari Probandari; Lars Lindholm; Hans Stenlund; Adi Utarini; Anna-Karin Hurtig Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lan Huu Nguyen; Phuong Thi Minh Tran; Thu Anh Dam; Rachel Jeanette Forse; Andrew James Codlin; Huy Ba Huynh; Thuy Thi Thu Dong; Giang Hoai Nguyen; Vinh Van Truong; Ha Thi Minh Dang; Tuan Dinh Nguyen; Hoa Binh Nguyen; Nhung Viet Nguyen; Amera Khan; Jacob Creswell; Luan Nguyen Quang Vo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nguyen B Hoa; Frank G J Cobelens; Dinh N Sy; Nguyen V Nhung; Martien W Borgdorff; Edine W Tiemersma Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Jean-Pierre Unger; Pierre De Paepe; Patricia Ghilbert; Werner Soors; Andrew Green Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: David W Dowdy; Ismat Lotia; Andrew S Azman; Jacob Creswell; Suvanand Sahu; Aamir J Khan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240