| Literature DB >> 24438431 |
Shivani Chandra1, Nandini Sharma, Kulanand Joshi, Nishi Aggarwal, Anjur Tupil Kannan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The key to universal coverage in tuberculosis (TB) management lies in community participation and empowerment of the population. Social infrastructure development generates social capital and addresses the crucial social determinants of TB, thereby improving program performance. Recently, there has been renewed interest in the concept of social infrastructure development for TB control in developing countries. This study aims to revive this concept and highlight the fact that documentation on ways to operationalize urban TB control is required from a holistic development perspective. Further, it explains how development of social infrastructure impacts health and development outcomes, especially with respect to TB in urban settings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24438431 PMCID: PMC3898563 DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Res Policy Syst ISSN: 1478-4505
Demographic profile and TB program performance of Delhi for the years 2001 and 2011
| Delhi population | 13,850,507 | 16,753,235 |
| Decadal growth rate | 47.0% | 21.0% |
| Net migration rate | 12.7% | 17.5% |
| Population density (per square km) | 9,340 | 11,297 |
| Sex ratio (Females per 1,000 males) | 821 | 866 |
| Literacy rates (%) | 82 | 86 |
| Per capita income (INR) | 38,864 | 148,608 |
| Population living in urban areas | 93.0% | 97.5% |
| Population growth rate in urban areas | 51.3% | 26.6% |
| Population living in one-room dwelling units | 38.1% | 32.2% |
| Average number of household members | 4.9 | 5.2 |
| Slum population residing in urban areas | 15.7% | 19.6% |
| Unauthorized settlements (shanty clusters/unauthorized/resettlement colonies) | 67.5% | 46.0% |
| Percentage of State Government budget on healthc | 7 | 12 |
| Number of doctors in government hospitals per 10,000 populationc | 1.9 | 3.8 |
| Number of treatment centres (DOT centres) | 51 | 585 |
| Number of private sector engagements | 10 | 231 |
| Number of TB suspects examined | 153220* | 164392 |
| Number of new TB case notification rates per 100,000 population | 229 | 214 |
| TB death rates (%) | 3.1 | 2.2 |
| Number of lives saved (all types of TB patients) | 4775 | 9076 |
| Lives saved (all types of TB patients) per 100,000 population | 35 | 51 |
Data Source: aOffice of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. bOffice of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. cUrban Health Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. dRevised National Tuberculosis Control Program Delhi, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (http://www.dotsdelhi.org/program-performance.php) *Data available from the year 2005 onwards in Annual TB Report, 2006 at the website of Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program, Government of India (http://www.tbcindia.nic.in/pdfs/Annual%20Report%20TB%202006.pdf).
Figure 1Bhagidari program: government-citizen partnership with public authorities, private agencies, and public as end-users. *Courtesy: Office of Chief Minister Delhi, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Decline in new TB patients (all forms of TB) and new smear-positive TB patients per 100,000 population; Delhi, 2001–2011
| 2001–2002 | 31,718 | 229.84 | 2.53 | 5.437 | 11,794 | 85.46 | 1.54 | 4.448 |
| 2002–2003 | 31,856 | 229.18 | 2.54 | 5.435 | 12,119 | 87.19 | 1.56 | 4.468 |
| 2003–2004 | 34,121 | 229.00 | 2.62 | 5.434 | 12,384 | 83.11 | 1.58 | 4.420 |
| 2004–2005 | 33,155 | 215.29 | 2.59 | 5.372 | 12,604 | 81.84 | 1.60 | 4.405 |
| 2005–2006 | 34,778 | 217.36 | 2.65 | 5.382 | 12,554 | 78.46 | 1.59 | 4.363 |
| 2006–2007 | 36,873 | 229.03 | 2.73 | 5.434 | 13,717 | 85.20 | 1.66 | 4.445 |
| 2007–2008 | 38,261 | 230.49 | 2.78 | 5.440 | 13,768 | 82.94 | 1.67 | 4.418 |
| 2008–2009 | 37,532 | 219.49 | 2.75 | 5.391 | 14,002 | 81.88 | 1.68 | 4.405 |
| 2009–2010 | 39,222 | 222.85 | 2.81 | 5.407 | 14,207 | 80.72 | 1.69 | 4.391 |
| 2010–2011 | 37,655 | 213.99 | 2.76 | 5.354 | 13,245 | 75.26 | 1.66 | 4.336 |
| | | | Average | 5.408 | | | Average | 4.410 |
| | | | Slope | -0.005 | | | Slope | -0.009 |
| | | | Standard deviation | 0.003 | | | Standard deviation | 0.003 |
| | | | 95% Confidence interval (±) | 0.014 | | | 95% Confidence interval (±) | 0.015 |
| | | | Pearson’s coefficient | -0.557 | | | Pearson’s coefficient | -0.749 |
| 0.050* | 0.006** | |||||||
| (one-tailed) | (one-tailed) | |||||||
Notes. *P <0.05 level, **P <0.01 level.
Data Source a,bProgram surveillance records, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Central TB Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Data Source cCensus of India, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Figure 2Logarithmic decline in tuberculosis (TB) notification rate per 100,000 population; Delhi, 2001–2011. (a) New TB patients; (b) New smear-positive TB patients.
Correlation matrix: endogenous and exogenous TB variables in Delhi from 2001–2011 (n = 10)
| Pearson correlation | 1 | 0.951** | 0.981** | -0.846* | -0.340 | 0.998** | -0.998** | |
| | Sig. (two-tailed) | | 0.004 | 0.001 | 0.03 | 0.51 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Pearson correlation | 0.951** | 1 | 0.934** | -0.784 | -0.435 | 0.957** | -0.956** | |
| | Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.004 | | 0.006 | 0.06 | 0.39 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Pearson correlation | 0.981** | 0.934** | 1 | -0.774 | -0.222 | 0.989** | -0.990** | |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.006 | 0.071 | 0.672 | 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
| Pearson correlation | -0.846* | -0.784 | -0.774 | 1 | 0.538 | -0.846* | 0.844* | |
| | Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.071 | | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| Pearson correlation | -0.340 | -0.435 | -0.222 | 0.538 | 1 | -0.333 | 0.328 | |
| | Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.51 | 0.39 | 0.672 | 0.27 | | 0.52 | 0.53 |
| Pearson correlation | 0 · 957** | 0.957** | 0.989** | -0.846* | -0.333 | 1 | -0.999** | |
| | Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.03 | 0.52 | | 1.122E-09 |
| | ||||||||
| Pearson correlation | -0.998** | -0.956** | -0.990** | 0.844* | 0.328 | -0.999** | 1 | |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.03 | 0.53 | 1.122E-09 |
*P <0.05 level, **P <0.01 level.
Univariate linear regression: impact of social determinants on number of new TB cases per 100,000 population in Delhi during the years 2001–2011
| 0.716 | 10.08 | -0.886 | 0.279 | -0.846 | -3.17 | 0.03* | |
| 0.62 | 6.4 | 0.401 | 0.877 | 0.462 | 1.344 | 0.311 | |
| 0.774 | 5.98 | -0.139 | 0.057 | -0.774 | -2.447 | 0.071 | |
| 0.289 | 1.63 | 0.025 | 0.02 | 0.538 | 1.27 | 0.27 | |
| 0.716 | 10.08 | -0.043 | 0.013 | -0.846 | -3.17 | 0.03* | |
| 0.712 | 9.89 | 0.012 | 0.003 | 0.843 | 3.14 | 0.03* | |
Notes. *p<0·05, Dependent Variable: Number of New TB Cases per 100,000 population.
Shift in systemic intervention for urban TB control in developing countries
| • Adopt community intervention strategies which support development of social infrastructure | |
| • Create opportunities to encourage people’s participation in decision-making and community activities | |
| • Collaborate with elected representatives and community self-help groups for the public health responsibility of their community | |
| • Liaison with the Ministry of Urban Development for Urban Self Employment program, Urban Women Self Help programs. Availability of night shelters for the shelterless population | |
| • Work with the Department of Education to advocate TB in school health programs and youth awareness clubs | |
| • Facilitate provision of social protection through available National Health Insurance schemes for below poverty line families and senior citizens. Development of a sustainable program for daily wagers with the Department of Labour | |
| • Coordinate with the Food and Supplies Department for access to subsidized public distribution system | |
| • Link with mother and child health services and support networks | |
| • Establish innovative schemes in public-private partnership | |
| • Reduce out-of-pocket expenses incurred by people on transport and wage loss by linking with available Social Welfare programs, especially for commuters from satellite towns bordering the city | |
| • Explore the utilization of existing physical infrastructure for community services | |
| • Seek opportunities to participate in city development plans and in planning for improvement of medical infrastructure in secondary/tertiary institutes | |
| | • Liaison with the Department of Information and Technology to improve access to digital technology |
| • Share best practices with other public health programs to reach out to the vulnerable and marginalized groups in the city | |
| • ‘Search TB’ in vulnerable and high risk groups among city dwellers | |
| • Mandatory TB notification by all sectors | |
| • Support incorporation of basic socio-economic data of patients in TB program surveillance records | |
| • Develop social inclusion as a separate standard in the International Standards of TB care | |
| • Incorporate available social welfare schemes in Patient Charter for TB care |
Figure 3Schematic framework for urban tuberculosis control.