| Literature DB >> 22879816 |
Katharina Kranzer1, Stephen D Lawn, Gesine Meyer-Rath, Anna Vassall, Eudoxia Raditlhalo, Darshini Govindasamy, Nienke van Schaik, Robin Wood, Linda-Gail Bekker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization is currently developing guidelines on screening for tuberculosis disease to inform national screening strategies. This process is complicated by significant gaps in knowledge regarding mass screening. This study aimed to assess feasibility, uptake, yield, treatment outcomes, and costs of adding an active tuberculosis case-finding program to an existing mobile HIV testing service. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22879816 PMCID: PMC3413719 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001281
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Med ISSN: 1549-1277 Impact factor: 11.069
Figure 1Procedures and patient flow in the mobile clinic.
The number indicate the squence of procedure each patient had to go through.
Figure 2Map of Cape Town indicating the main areas in which the mobile services operated.
(1) Athlone: testing at a shopping mall/market, the roadside, a social housing project; (2) Cape Town city bowel: testing at a college, service for homeless, service for commercial sex workers, two companies, two road sides; (3) Delft: testing at two squatter camps, two clinics, two social housing projects, the road side; (4) Durbanville: testing at two taxi ranks; (5) Grassy Park: testing at the road side; (6) Guguletu: testing at two shopping malls/markets, a clinic; (7) Hout Bay: testing at a school, in a township, at the harbour; (8) Khayelitsha: testing at a shopping centre/market, a school, in the township, at the station; (9) Macassar: testing at the road side; (10) Kraaifontain: testing at a clinic; (11) Langa: testing at a shopping mall/market, the road side; (12) Masiphumelele: testing in the township, at a shopping mall; (13) Milnerton: testing at a company; (14) Mitchells Plain: testing at the road side, a social housing project; (15) Belhar: testing at a squatter camp; (16) Nyanga: testing at a taxi rank, at a shopping centre; (17) Ocean View: testing at a clinic, in the township; (18) Parkwood: testing at two road sides; (19) Phillippi: testing at two farms, three road sides; (20) Retreat: testing at a clinic; (21) Wynberg: testing at the road side; (22) Claremont: testing at the road side; (23) Grabouw: testing in the township, at the clinic, at the road side.
Figure 3Flowchart of individuals participating in the study.
Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and health-seeking behaviour among those undergoing screening.
| Variables | Total ( | HIV− ( | Newly Diagnosed HIV+ ( | Known HIV+ ( |
|
| ||||
| Median (IQR) | 35.9 (27.9–45.7) | 40.2 (29.2–50.0) | 33.4 (26.4–40.9) | 33.5 (28.2–40.8) |
|
| 406 (35.9%) | 261 (48.9%) | 96 (33.3%) | 49 (15.9%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 656 (58.2%) | 224 (42.0%) | 197 (68.6%) | 235 (76.6%) |
|
| 13 (1.2%) | 8 (1.5%) | 2 (0.7%) | 3 (1.0%) |
|
| 458 (40.6%) | 301 (56.5%) | 88 (30.7%) | 69 (22.5%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 644 (57.2%) | 280 (52.7%0 | 160 (55.6%) | 204 (66.5%) |
|
| 229 (20.3%) | 98 (18.5%) | 67 (23.3%) | 64 (20.9%) |
|
| 190 (16.9%) | 108 (20.3%) | 52 (18.1%) | 30 (9.8%) |
|
| 63 (5.6%) | 45 (8.5%) | 9 (3.1%) | 9 (2.9%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 677 (60.0%) | 296 (55.4%) | 184 (63.9%) | 197 (64.4%) |
|
| 377 (33.4%) | 199 (37.3%) | 85 (29.5%) | 93 (30.4%) |
|
| 22 (2.0%) | 15 (2.8%) | 4 (1.4%) | 3 (1.0%) |
|
| 52 (4.6%) | 24 (4.5%) | 15 (5.25) | 13 (4.3%) |
|
| 985 (87.3%) | 472 (88.2%) | 239 (83.0%) | 275 (89.6%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 259 (26.5%) | 121 (26.0%) | 40 (16.7%) | 98 (35.8%) |
|
| 375 (38.3%) | 184 (39.5%) | 96 (40.2%) | 95 (34.7%) |
|
| 345 (35.3%) | 161 (34.6%) | 103 (43.1%) | 81 (29.6%) |
| Median (IQR) | 1,000 (400–1,200) | 1,000 (400–1,200) | 870 (280–1,200) | 960 (400–1,120) |
|
| ||||
|
| 45 (4.00) | 29 (5.4%) | 6 (2.1%) | 10 (3.3%) |
|
| 369 (32.7%) | 218 (41.0%) | 84 (29.2%) | 67 (21.8%) |
|
| 465 (41.3%) | 192 (36.1%) | 122 (42.4%) | 151 (49.2%) |
|
| 159 (14.1%) | 49 (9.2%) | 52 (18.1%) | 58 (18.9%) |
|
| 89 (7.9%) | 44 (8.3%) | 24 (8.3%) | 21 (6.8%) |
|
| 159 (14.1%) | 92 (17.2%) | 39 (13.5%) | 28 (9.1%) |
|
| 712 (63.1%) | 304 (57.0%) | 207 (71.9%) | 201 (65.3%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 48 (4.3%) | 36 (6.8%) | 3 (1.1%) | 9 (2.9%) |
| Median (IQR) | 24.4 (21.4–29.4) | 22.7 (20.2–27.4) | 25.1 (22.2–30.1) | 26.5 (23.3–30.9) |
| Median (IQR) | NA | NA | 434 (316–617) | 403 (288–570) |
|
| NA | NA | NA | 120 (39.0%) |
| Median (IQR) | NA | NA | NA | 3.1 (1.1–6.5) |
|
| ||||
|
| 845 (74.8%) | 402 (75.3%) | 247 (85.8%) | 196 (63.6%) |
|
| 247 (21.9%) | 115 (21.5%) | 37 (12.9%) | 95 (30.8%) |
|
| 38 (3.4%) | 17 (3.2%) | 4 (1.4%) | 17 (5.5%) |
|
| 133 (11.8%) | 60 (11.2%) | 15 (5.2%) | 58 (18.8%) |
|
| 240 (21.2%) | 121 (22.7%) | 63 (21.9%) | 56 (18.2%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 707 (62.6%) | 450 (84.3%) | 124 (43.1%) | 133 (43.2%) |
|
| 126 (11.2%) | 94 (17.6%) | 14 (4.9%) | 18 (5.8%) |
|
| 119 (10.5%) | 75 (14.0%) | 21 (7.3%) | 23 (7.47%) |
|
| 628 (55.6%) | 395 (74.0%) | 115 (39.9%) | 118 (38.3%) |
|
| 458 (40.5%) | 284 (53.2%) | 78 (27.1%) | 96 (31.2%) |
|
| 838 (74.2%) | 497 (93.1%) | 160 (55.6%) | 162 (52.6%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 170 (20.7%) | 112 (23.0%) | 19 (11.6%) | 39 (23.1%) |
|
| 105 (61.8%) | 69 (61.6%) | 10 (52.6%) | 26 (66.7%) |
|
| 54 (31.8%) | 35 (31.3%) | 4 (21.1%) | 15 (38.5%) |
3 missing values.
4 missing values.
2 missing values.
1 missing value.
30 missing values.
18 missing values.
BMI, body mass index; CXR, chest X-ray.
Tuberculosis prevalence (n = 1,011).
| Variables | Total ( | HIV− ( | Newly Diagnosed HIV+ ( | Known HIV+ ( |
|
| ||||
|
| 20 (2.0%) | 11 (2.2%) | 8 (3.3%) | 1 (0.4%) |
|
| 3 (0.3%) | 1 (0.2%) | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 6 (0.6%) | 3 (0.6%) | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.4%) |
|
| 6 (0.6%) | 4 (0.8%) | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| 5 (0.5%) | 3 (0.6%) | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0.0%) |
|
| ||||
|
| 746 (73.8%) | 346 (70.5%) | 180 (74.1%) | 220 (79.4%) |
|
| 162 (16.0%) | 88 (17.9%) | 36 (14.8%) | 38 (13.7%) |
|
| 47 (4.7%) | 31 (6.3%) | 9 (3.7%) | 7 (2.5%) |
|
| 56 (5.5%) | 26 (5.3%) | 18 (7.4%) | 12 (4.3%) |
| Median (IQR) | 13.5 (8–22) | 12 (7–17) | 13 (8–22) | 19 (14.5–27) |
MOTT, mycobateria other than TB.
Contact rates and treatment success in patients diagnosed with tuberculosis.
| Variables | Total ( | Smear + ( | Smear −/Culture + ( |
|
| 50 (89.3%) | 19 (95.0%) | 31 (86.1%) |
|
| 4 (1–10) | 1 (0–2) | 6 (4–20) |
|
| |||
|
| 2 (4.0%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (3.2%) |
|
| 6 (12.0%) | 1 (5.3%) | 5 (16.1%) |
|
| 42 (84.0%) | 17 (89.5%) | 25 (80.7%) |
|
| 27 (7–54) | 6.5 (4.5–8) | 45 (32–57) |
|
| 24 (3–50) | 1.5 (0–6.5) | 43 (29–74) |
|
| 1 (0–8) | 0.5 (0–25) | 2 (0–23) |
|
| |||
|
| 34 (81.0%) | 12 (70.6%) | 22 (88.0%) |
|
| 2 (4.8%) | 1 (5.9%) | 1 (4.0%) |
|
| 5 (11.9%) | 3 (17.6%) | 2 (8.0%) |
|
| 1 (2.4%) | 1 (5.9) | 0 (0.0%) |
Figure 4Losses between tuberculosis diagnosis to treatment completion.
(1) The reasons for not being able to contact individuals were: relocation to an unknown area (n = 3), demolition of the area where the individual had lived (n = 2), and imprisonment (n = 1). (2) Two individuals had refused treatment and six individuals had not started treatment at their nearest clinic. Several attempts were made to contact these individuals, but all of them had moved to an unknown destination.