| Literature DB >> 26293293 |
Juliet N Sekandi1,2,3, Sarah Zalwango4,5, Leonardo Martinez6, Andreas Handel7, Robert Kakaire8, Allan K Nkwata9, Amara E Ezeamama10, Noah Kiwanuka11, Christopher C Whalen12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delay in tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis adversely affects patients' outcomes and prolongs transmission in the community. The influence of social contacts on steps taken by active pulmonary TB patients to seek a diagnosis has not been well examined.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26293293 PMCID: PMC4546132 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-1084-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Conceptual Model of Social and Provider Contacts in TB Patients’ Diagnostic Pathway. Legend: The TB patient (lighter grey) initiates movement through the network. Solid lines are directional and indicate the types of movement between contacts in the network; heavier lines have double arrows representing bidirectional movement allowing for iterative paths and loops in the networks. The TB provider making the final diagnosis (darker grey) represents the absorbing step for all movements
Fig. 2Illustration of a Realized Pathway to Final TB Diagnosis. Legend: Solid line represents the linear representation of the path through the diagnostic network. Non-solid circles represent the contact points, or nodes, of the network leading to diagnosis. The interval between each node is characterized by a step number (s) and a time interval (t). The total steps to diagnosis is s1 + s2 + s3 + s4 + s5. Total time to diagnosis is t1 + t2 + t3 + t4 + t5
Baseline characteristics of 294 participants in Kampala, Uganda, April–July 2014
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Median Age (IQR), yrs | 30 (24–38) | NA |
| Age groups | ||
| 18–24 | 74 | 25.0 |
| 25–34 | 108 | 37.0 |
| 35–44 | 71 | 24.3 |
| ≥45 | 41 | 13.7 |
| Sex | ||
| Female | 124 | 41.3 |
| Male | 170 | 58.7 |
| Marital status | ||
| Never married | 103 | 35.0 |
| Currently married | 106 | 36.7 |
| Previously married | 85 | 28.3 |
| Division of Residence | ||
| Rubaga | 26 | 9.0 |
| Nakawa | 12 | 4.0 |
| Central | 27 | 9.7 |
| Kawempe | 76 | 26.0 |
| Makindye | 31 | 10.3 |
| Othera | 122 | 41.0 |
| Employedc | ||
| Yes | 244 | 83.3 |
| No | 50 | 16.7 |
| Median Monthly Income, US$ (IQR)b | 80 (40–160) | NA |
| TB Treatment Category | ||
| New | 224 | 76.1 |
| Retreatment | 70 | 23.9 |
| HIV Status | ||
| Positive | 96 | 32.7 |
| Negative | 184 | 62.7 |
| Don’t know | 14 | 4.6 |
| Smoking Status | ||
| Current Smoker | 34 | 13.0 |
| Previous Smoker | 41 | 15.6 |
| Non Smoker | 190 | 71.4 |
| Missing | 29 | - |
| Cellphone Ownership | ||
| Yes | 237 | 81.0 |
| No | 57 | 19.0 |
a Others = Towns outside of the 5 divisions of Kampala district
bIncome in Uganda Shillings (1US$ ~ Ushs 2500)
cIncludes both formal and informal employment
Steps and time to diagnosis by patients’ clinical characteristics
| Characteristics | Total number of patients | Steps to diagnosis (Median, IQR) |
| Days to diagnosis (Median, IQR) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 294 | 4 (3,7) | 70 (28,140) | ||
| TB treatment category | |||||
| New | 224 | 5 (3,8) | 84 (42,168) | ||
| Retreatment | 70 | 3 (3,4) | <0.0001a | 46 (26,84) | <0.0001a |
| HIV Status | |||||
| Positive | 96 | 4 (3,6) | 17 (6,60) | ||
| Negative | 184 | 4 (3,8) | 42 (16,118) | ||
| Unknown | 14 | 5 (4,7) | 0.081b | 59 (20,90) | 0.0004b |
aWilcoxon Rank-sum test: p-value for comparison of two-sample medians
bKruskal-Wallis rank test p-value for comparison of two or more sample medians
Fig. 3Percent of TB Patients’ First Contact by TB Treatment Category
Fig. 4Percent Distribution of First Contact Place or Person. Legend: Gov’t hospital, health center and private hospital = All TB Provider. Herbal healer, private clinics, drugs stores, village health worker = Non-TB providers. Parent, spouse, siblings, adult child, other relative, friend, co-worker, neighbor = Social contacts
Step patterns and person- days in diagnostic pathway by social and health provider contacts among 294 TB patients
| Step patterns | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | To | Steps pairsc (%) | Total person- daysd (%) | Median person-dayse [IQR] | Number of patients in stepf |
| All steps | 1,555 | 32,011 | 14 (3,27) | 294 | |
| Self | Social contact | 171 (11) | 7249 (23) | 28 (14,53) | 171 |
| Self | Non-TB provider | 87 (5.4) | 4009 (12) | 29 (16,62) | 87 |
| Self | TB provider, no diagnosisb | 27 (2) | 1353 (4) | 54 (18,69) | 27 |
| Self | TB provider, final diagnosisa | 9 (0.6) | 609 (2) | 68 (21,91) | 9 |
| Self | Any contact | 294 (19) | 13,220 (41) | 29 (16,58) | 294 |
| Social contact | Social contact | 30 (2.4) | 515 (2) | 14 (2,19) | 26 |
| Social contact | Non-TB provider | 171 (11) | 2364 (7) | 14 (2,14) | 141 |
| Social contact | TB provider, no diagnosisb | 77 (5) | 1123 (4) | 7 (1,14) | 75 |
| Social contact | TB provider, final diagnosisa | 73 (4.6) | 456 (1) | 2 (1,14) | 73 |
| Social contact | Any contact | 351 (23) | 4458 (14) | 7 (7,77) | 315 |
| Non-TB provider | Social contact | 135 (9) | 1746 (5) | 7 (2,14) | 92 |
| Non-TB provider | Non-TB provider | 405 (26) | 6801 (21) | 14 (7,21) | 139 |
| Non-TB provider | TB provider, no diagnosisb | 43 (3) | 825 (3) | 14 (3,26) | 41 |
| Non-TB provider | TB provider, final diagnosisa | 118 (7) | 1500 (5) | 7 (1,14) | 118 |
| Non-TB provider | Any contact | 701 (45) | 10,872 (34) | 14 (7,30) | 390 |
| TB provider, no diagnosis | Social contact | 15 (0.9) | 260 (0.8) | 14 (3,22) | 14 |
| TB provider, no diagnosis | Non-TB Provider | 38 (2.1) | 696 (2.2) | 11 (4,30) | 37 |
| TB provider, no diagnosis | TB provider, no diagnosisb | 62 (4) | 1551 (5) | 14 (5,30) | 36 |
| TB provider, no diagnosis | TB provider, final diagnosisa | 94 (6) | 952 (3) | 3 (1,14) | 94 |
| TB provider, no diagnosis | Any contact | 209 (13) | 3459 (11) | 7 (3,17) | 181 |
| All steps | 1,555 | 32,011 | 14 (3,27) | 294 | |
Self = Symptom onset or recognition
TB Provider = Gov’t hospital, health center and private hospital
Non-TB providers = Herbal healer, private clinics, drugs stores, village health worker
Social Contact = Parent, spouse, siblings, adult child, other relative, friend, co-worker, neighbor
aTB provider where final diagnosis took place; all patients performed this step only once
bTB provider, no diagnosis where a TB diagnosis was not made in the step
cTotal step pairs capture patients’ movements between two contact points along their pathway
dTotal time represents cumulative person-days spent in a given step pair by all patients who performed it
eMedian person-days spent by patients who performed each step pair
fNumber of patients taking steps, this may exceed N = 294 because some patients performed the same step pairs more than once
Relative likelihood of TB final diagnosis expressed as hazard ratios using cox regression analysis
| Steps to diagnosis | Days to diagnosis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | Total (%) | Unadjusted HR (95 % CI) | Adjusted HR (95 % CI) | Unadjusted HR (95 % CI) | Adjusted HR (95 % CI) |
| Age category | |||||
| 18–24 | 74 (25) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 25–34 | 108 (37) | 0.89 (0.66,1.19) | 0.82 (0.60,1.11) | 0.97 (0.72,1.30) | 0.81 (0.59,1.10) |
| 35–44 | 71 (24.3) | 0.91 (0.66,1.26) | 0.72 (0.50,1.03) | 0.96 (0.69,1.34) | 0.88 (0.59,1.16) |
| ≥45 | 41 (13.7) | 1.48 (1.11,2.16) | 1.37 (0.92,2.04) | 1.70 (1.15,2.50) | 1.14 (0.77,1.68) |
| Sex | |||||
| Female | 124 (41.3) | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - |
| Male | 170 (58.7) | 1.07 (0.85.1.35) | 1.19 (0.94.1.51) | ||
| Marital status | |||||
| Never married | 103 (35) | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - |
| Currently married | 106 (36.7) | 0.83 (0.64,1.09) | 0.76 (0.58,1.00) | ||
| Previously married | 85 (28.3) | 1.08 (0.81,1.44) | 0.97 (0.74,1.33) | ||
| Employment | |||||
| Yes | 244 (83.3) | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - |
| No | 50 (16.7) | 0.84 (0.62,1.14) | 0.87 (0.64,1.19) | ||
| Mobile phone ownership | |||||
| Yes | 237 (81) | 1.00 | - | 1.00 | - |
| No | 57 (19) | 1.16 (0.87,1.55) | 1.07 (0.79,1.43) | ||
| TB treatment category | |||||
| Retreatment | 70 (23.7) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| New | 224 (76.3) | 0.59 (0.45,0.78)* | 0.66 (0.49,0.88)* | 0.62 (0.47,0.81)* | 0.70 (0.52–0.93)* |
| HIV status | |||||
| Positive | 96 (32.7) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Negative | 184 (62.7) | 0.84 (0.66,1.11) | 0.88 (0.67–1.15) | 0.77 (0.60–0.96) | 0.70 (0.53–0.92)* |
| Don’t know | 14 (4.6) | 0.85 (0.49,1.49) | 0.95 (0.54–1.68) | 0.85 (0.47–1.52) | 1.23 (0.68–2.33) |
| First contacted place/person | |||||
| Social | 171 (58) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| TB care provider | 36 (12) | 0.99 (0.69,1.42) | 1.08 (0.75,1.57) | 0.88 (0.62,1.27) | 0.89 (0.62,1.29) |
| Non-TB care provider | 87 (30) | 0.65 (0.50,0.85)* | 0.72 (0.55,0.95)* | 0.71 (0.55,0.92)* | 0.50 (0.40,0.70)* |
*significant at p < 0.05