| Literature DB >> 26418678 |
Grace Mhalu1, Jerry Hella1, Basra Doulla2, Francis Mhimbira1, Hawa Mtutu3, Helen Hiza4, Mohamed Sasamalo1, Liliana Rutaihwa1, Hans L Rieder5, Tamsyn Seimon6, Beatrice Mutayoba7, Mitchell G Weiss8, Lukas Fenner9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the effect of an instructional video about the production of diagnostic sputum on case detection of tuberculosis (TB), and evaluated the acceptance of the video. TRIALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26418678 PMCID: PMC4587748 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1CONSORT flow diagram.
Fig 2Overview of the study procedures.
Patient characteristics of study participants by intervention and control group.
| Characteristic | All | Intervention | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients, n | 200 | 100 | 100 |
| Age group, years, n (%) | |||
| 18–27 | 39 (19.5) | 14 (14) | 25 (25) |
| 28–37 | 64 (32) | 33 (33) | 31 (31) |
| 38–47 | 53 (26.5) | 33 (33) | 20 (20) |
| 48–57 | 20 (10) | 8 (8) | 12 (12) |
| >57 | 24 (12) | 12 (12) | 12 (12) |
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 106 (53) | 54 (54) | 52 (52) |
| Female | 94 (47) | 46 (46) | 48 (48) |
| HIV status, n (%) | |||
| Negative | 102 (51) | 45 (45) | 57 (57) |
| Positive | 49 (24.5) | 30 (30) | 19 (19) |
| Test not done | 42 (21) | 23 (23) | 19 (19) |
| Unknown status | 7 (3.5) | 2 (2) | 5 (5) |
| Educational level | |||
| Primary school | 121 (60.5) | 65 (65) | 56 (56) |
| Secondary school | 56 (28) | 23 (23) | 33 (33) |
| College | 13 (6.5) | 5 (5) | 8 (8) |
| No formal education | 10 (5) | 7 (7) | 3 (3) |
| Occupation, n (%) | |||
| Business | 67 (33.5) | 28 (28) | 39 (39) |
| Driver | 7 (3.5) | 3 (3) | 4 (4) |
| Farmer | 20 (10) | 12 (12) | 8 (8) |
| Unemployed | 48 (24) | 23 (23) | 25 (25) |
| Other | 58 (29) | 34 (34) | 24 (24) |
IQR, interquartile range; TB, tuberculosis.
Association between quality of sputum sample and patient characteristics, according to intervention (exposure to sputum submission instruction video, n = 100) or control group (standard care, n = 100).
| Characteristic | No. | Positive sputum microscopy | Sputum volume ≥3 mL | High-quality sputum | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Control | Intervention | Control |
| Intervention | Control |
| Intervention | Control |
| |
| Age group, years | 0.037 | 0.55 | 0.093 | ||||||||
| 18–37 | 53 | 46 | 23 (43.4) | 16 (34.8) | 33 (62.3) | 22 (47.8) | 35 (66) | 33 (71.7) | |||
| >37 | 47 | 54 | 33 (70.2) | 7 (13) | 45 (97.8) | 19 (35.2) | 42 (85.7) | 26 (48.1) | |||
| Sex | 0.22 | 0.93 | 0.77 | ||||||||
| Male | 54 | 52 | 35 (64.8) | 12 (23.1) | 43 (79.6) | 25 (48.1) | 47 (87) | 30 (57.7) | |||
| Female | 46 | 48 | 21 (45.7) | 11 (22.9) | 35 (76.1) | 19 (39.6) | 39 (84.8) | 29 (60.4) | |||
| HIV status | 0.98 | 0.50 | 0.56 | ||||||||
| Positive | 30 | 19 | 14 (46.7) | 3 (15.8) | 21 (70) | 8 (42.1) | 23 (76.7) | 6 (31.6) | |||
| Negative / unknown | 70 | 81 | 42 (60) | 20 (24.7) | 27 (38.6) | 30 (37) | 41 (58.6) | 23 (28.4) | |||
| Level of education | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | ||||||||
| Basic/higher education | 93 | 97 | 48 (51.6) | 20 (20.6) | 49 (52.7) | 28 (28.9) | 57 (61.3) | 35 (36.1) | |||
| No formal education | 7 | 3 | 6 (85.7) | 0 (0) | 6 (85.7) | 0 (0) | 6 (85.7) | 0 (0) | |||
| Employment status | 0.97 | 0.29 | 0.749 | ||||||||
| Employed | 77 | 75 | 44 (57.1) | 18 (24) | 28(36.4) | 30 (40) | 67 (87) | 42 (56) | |||
| Unemployed | 23 | 25 | 12 (52.2) | 5 (20) | 8 (34.8 | 11 (44) | 17 (74) | 13 (52) | |||
1 see definitions in the Methods section.
P values correspond to interaction terms derived from logistic regression models.
Fig 3Sputum smear positive microscopy results in the intervention (exposure to the sputum submission instruction video) and control group (standard of care), overall and stratified by sex.
Numbers on the bars indicate absolute number of patients.
Fig 4Quantitative grading scale of sputum smear microscopy results in the intervention (exposure to the sputum submission instruction video) and control group (standard of care).
Numbers on the bars indicate absolute number of patients. Overall P value across groups was <0.0001.
Fig 5Sputum volume in the intervention (exposure to the sputum submission instruction video) and control group (standard of care).
Numbers on the bars indicate absolute number of patients. Overall P value across groups was <0.0001.