| Literature DB >> 26905034 |
A O Adejumo1, B Azuogu2, O Okorie3, O M Lawal4, O J Onazi5, M Gidado5, O J Daniel6, J C Okeibunor7, E Klinkenberg8,9, E M H Mitchell8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engagement of communities and civil society organizations is a critical part of the Post-2015 End TB Strategy. Since 2007, many models of community referral have been implemented to boost TB case detection in Nigeria. Yet clear insights into the comparative TB yield from particular approaches have been limited.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26905034 PMCID: PMC4763441 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-2769-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Selection criteria for community workers in the different models
| Models | State | Contact person/institution | Who does the selection | Criteria for selection | TB local government supervisor awareness | CBO influence on selection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dealing | Abia | The traditional leader | The traditional leader | 1. Known to the traditional leader | The local government TB supervisor was aware but had no influence on the selection process | Does not work with CBOs in their operations |
| 2. Live in the community | ||||||
| 3. Respected member of the community | ||||||
| 4. Previous active involvement in volunteer work was an added advantage | ||||||
| Supervision without quotas | Oyo | The Medical Officer of health for the local government. | The local government council officials | Involvement in other volunteer work in the local government | The local government TB supervisor was aware but has no influence on the selection process | No influence they had to work with what was provided |
| Comprehensive quotas-oriented | Lagos | The Community Development Council (CDC) | The CDC but the local government TB supervisor and the Ward health committee made inputs | Involvement in other volunteer work in the local government | The local government TB supervisor was aware and could influence the selection process | No influence they had to work with what was provided |
| Unsupervised volunteer | Lagos | The Community Development Association (CDA) | The CBO | Any interested member of the community | Not aware of the selection | They determined who was selected |
Comparison of supervision, compensation, and quotas in community TB referral programs
| Type of model | Supervision of CWs | Other role of CWs apart from referral | Monetary compensation | Regularity of compensation | Quotas | Record keeping of referrals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dealing | Monthly meeting with TB Local Government Supervisor (TBLS), No field supervision | Optional | $10 quarterly | Not regular | No set quotas | Good |
| Supervision without quotas | Quarterly meeting with the CBO | Optional | $ 40 quarterly | Fairly regular | No set quotas, however compensation could be suspended if no referrals for 3 consecutive months | Very keen on record keeping |
| Irregular field supervision | ||||||
| Comprehensive quotas-oriented | Monthly meeting with the CBO. | Also serve as treatment supporter for any TB case arising from their referral and also track patient lost to follow up | $ 80 quarterly | Fairly regular | Five presumptive TB referrals every month and 1 TB case | Good record keeping |
| Regular field supervision | ||||||
| unsupervised volunteer | Irregular meetings | Never | Not fixed, any amount between $13.3 and $20 quarterly | Never regular | No quotas | Very poor, |
| No field supervision of CWs |
Note: 150 Naira to $1 used for conversion of Nigerian Naira to US dollars
NB: The CWs of the quotas oriented model do not get compensation for a referred case or TB case detected but only get compensation per time period just like CWs of other model
Fig. 1Conceptual framework of CTBC model in Nigeria
Comparison of TB case finding performance of four models of community worker referral
| Variable | Direct dealing with CWs model ( | Supervision without quotas model ( | Comprehensive quotas oriented model ( | Unsupervised volunteer model ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual compensation per CW | $40 | $160 | $320 | ≈$80 | |
| Referred clients tested for TB | |||||
| Total TB investigations (passive + active) | 211 | 2062 | 5113 | 1436 | 8822 |
| presumptive TB clients referred by the CWs | 48 | 498 | 1063 | 56 | 1665 |
| Proportion of TB investigation due to CW referral | 22.7 % | 24.2 % | 20.8 % | 3.9 % | 18.9 % |
| Average presumptive TB clients referred per CW (year) | 3.2 | 8.3 | 42.5 | 2.3 | 13.4 |
| Average CW compensation per referral (year) | $13 | $19 | $8 | $34 | |
| Average CW referrals needed to detect 1 TB case | 6 | 3.3 | 6 | 3.1 | 4.7 |
| TB patients diagnosed | |||||
| Total TB patients detected (actively and passively) in LGAs | 70 | 654 | 1145 | 413 | 2282 |
| TB cases from CWs referrals (yr) | 8 | 150 | 177 | 18 | 353 |
| Proportion of the total TB patients contributed by CWs | 11.4 % | 22.9 % | 15.5 % | 4.4 % | 15.5 % |
| CW compensation per TB patient diagnosed | $75 | $64 | $45 | $107 | |
| Mean number of TB patients contributed per CW (per year) | 0.53 | 2.5 | 7.1 | 0.75 | 2.8 |
Note: n Number of CW
NB: The number of CWs used in calculation were obtained from the Local government TB register
Factors affecting presumptive TB referrals by community workers
| Variable | n | Median | IQR | U | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age group | |||||
| Less than 50 years | Less than 50 years | 6.50 | 1.0–21.8 | 1177.5 | 0.010 |
| 50 years and above | 51 | 14.0 | 9.0–40.0 | ||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 42 | 12.0 | 4.8–22.0 | 1466.0 | 0.697 |
| Females | 73 | 10.0 | 2.0–41.0 | ||
| Worked as Treatment supporter | |||||
| Yes | 42 | 38.5 | 17.5–48.5 | 366.5 | <0.001 |
| No | 73 | 6.0 | 1.0–12.5 | ||
| Participation in other programs | |||||
| Yes | 99 | 11.0 | 3.0–37.0 | 641 | 0.221 |
| No | 16 | 8.0 | 1.3–17.5 | ||
| Knowledge of suspect identification | |||||
| Poor | 33 | 9.0 | 1.0–13.5 | 943.0 | 0.011 |
| Good | 82 | 14.0 | 4.0–42.0 |
Note: IQR interquartile range
U Mann Whitney U test