| Literature DB >> 26172948 |
Lelia H Chaisson1, Achilles Katamba2, Priscilla Haguma3, Emmanuel Ochom3, Irene Ayakaka3, Frank Mugabe4, Cecily Miller5, Eric Vittinghoff5, J Lucian Davis6, Margaret A Handley7, Adithya Cattamanchi6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) remains under-diagnosed in many countries, in part due to poor evaluation practices at health facilities. Theory-informed strategies are needed to improve implementation of TB evaluation guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the impact of performance feedback and same-day smear microscopy on the quality of TB evaluation at 6 health centers in rural Uganda.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26172948 PMCID: PMC4501843 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Overview of Intervention Development Process.
To develop a multi-faceted intervention to improve adherence to the International Standards of TB Care (ISTC), we first developed a conceptual model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. In this model, providers’ intention to follow ISTC-recommended TB evaluation practices is based on knowledge of and attitudes toward ISTC, having the required skills, perceived attitudes of their peers toward ISTC and belief in their ability to follow ISTC. Second, we conducted a formative assessment to gather data on these factors as well as health system barriers to TB evaluation. Finally, we selected intervention components that targeted pre-disposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors, as recommended by the PRECEDE model, and that were considered feasible and sustainable by key stakeholders.
Bivariate analysis of intervention impact on presumed TB patient evaluation at 6 health centers.
| Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | Difference | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| Received ISTC-adherent care | 432 (52%) | 410 (67%) | +16% (+11% to +21%) | <0.001 |
| Referred for sputum examination | 601 (72%) | 499 (82%) | +10% (+6% to +15%) | <0.001 |
| Completed sputum examination | 447 (74%) | 420 (84%) | +10% (+5% to +15%) | <0.001 |
| Initiated treatment if sputum smear-positive | 39 (72%) | 59 (86%) | +13% (+1% to +28%) | 0.07 |
|
|
|
| ||
| Received ISTC-adherent care | 527 (58%) | 784 (75%) | +17% (+13% to +21%) | <0.001 |
| Referred for sputum examination | 706 (78%) | 816 (78%) | +0.4% (-3% to +4%) | 0.83 |
| Completed sputum examination | 531 (75%) | 786 (96%) | +21% (+18% to +25%) | <0.001 |
| Initiated treatment if sputum smear-positive | 87 (96%) | 77 (97%) | +2% (-4% to +7%) | 0.69 |
Multivariate analysis of intervention impact on presumed TB patient evaluation at 6 health centers.
| Adjusted Proportion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | Difference | p-value | |
|
|
|
| ||
| Received ISTC-adherent care | 52% (49%-55%) | 67% (63%-70%) | +15% (+10% to +20%) | <0.001 |
| Referred for sputum examination | 72% (69%-75%) | 82% (79%-85%) | +9% (+5% to +14%) | <0.001 |
| Completed sputum examination | 75% (72%-78%) | 84% (80%-87%) | +9% (+4% to +13%) | <0.001 |
| Initiated treatment if sputum smear-positive | 69% (57%-81%) | 81% (72%-91%) | +12% (-4% to +27%) | 0.14 |
|
|
|
| ||
| Received ISTC-adherent care | 60% (57%-63%) | 74% (72%-7%) | +14% (+10% to +18%) | <0.001 |
| Referred for sputum examination | 77% (77%-82%) | 78% (75%-80%) | -1% (-5% to +2%) | 0.43 |
| Completed sputum examination | 77% (74%-79%) | 96% (95%-97%) | +19% (+16% to +23%) | <0.001 |
| Initiated treatment if sputum smear-positive | 91% (82%-99%) | 92% (82%-100%) | +2% (-12% to +15%) | 0.82 |
aAdjusted for age, sex, and site.
Between-site variation in impact of interventions on ISTC-adherent care at 6 health centers.
| Adjusted Proportion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention | Post-intervention | Difference | p-value | |
|
|
|
| ||
| Health Center A | 57% (49%-65%) | 88% (82%-94%) | +30% (+20% to +40%) | <0.001 |
| Health Center B | 73% (63%-83%) | 74% (62%-86%) | +1% (-15% to +17%) | 0.90 |
| Health Center C | 75% (68%-82%) | 87% (81%-93%) | +12% (+2% to +21%) | 0.01 |
| Health Center D | 49% (42%-56%) | 64% (56%-72%) | +15% (+5% to +26%) | 0.01 |
| Health Center E | 30% (23%-37%) | 42% (33%-50%) | +12% (+1% to +23%) | 0.04 |
| Health Center F | 32% (23%-40%) | 43% (30%-56%) | +12% (-4% to +27%) | 0.15 |
|
|
|
| ||
| Health Center A | 84% (78%-90%) | 82% (76%-87%) | -2% (-11% to +6%) | 0.55 |
| Health Center B | 93% (88%-98%) | 94% (89%-98%) | +1% (-6% to +8%) | 0.85 |
| Health Center C | 63% (56%-70%) | 74% (68%-81%) | +11% (+1% to +21%) | 0.03 |
| Health Center D | 81% (74%-87%) | 79% (73%-85%) | -2% (-11% to +7%) | 0.65 |
| Health Center E | 43% (36%-50%) | 67% (61%-74%) | +25% (+15% to +34%) | <0.001 |
| Health Center F | 17% (12%-22%) | 60% (53%-67%) | +43% (+34% to +52%) | <0.001 |
aAdjusted for age and sex