| Literature DB >> 29028800 |
Thandi Kapwata1, Natashia Morris2, Angela Campbell3, Thuli Mthiyane4, Primrose Mpangase4, Kristin N Nelson3, Salim Allana3, James C M Brust5, Pravi Moodley4, Koleka Mlisana4, Neel R Gandhi3,6, N Sarita Shah3,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa, has among the highest burden of XDR TB worldwide with the majority of cases occurring due to transmission. Poor access to health facilities can be a barrier to timely diagnosis and treatment of TB, which can contribute to ongoing transmission. We sought to determine the geographic distribution of XDR TB patients and proximity to health facilities in KwaZulu-Natal.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29028800 PMCID: PMC5640212 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181797
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Distribution of all XDR TB cases diagnosed per health facility (left panel) and enrolled XDR TB cases per health facility and residential location (right panel), KwaZulu-Natal, 2011–2014.
Road classes and road speeds in KwaZulu-Natal province, as defined by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Transport.
| Road classification | Movement network | Speed (km/h) |
|---|---|---|
| Regional distributor | Vehicle-only route | 120 |
| Primary distributor | Vehicle-only route | 100 |
| District distributor | Mixed pedestrian and vehicle route | 80 |
| Local distributor | Mixed pedestrian and vehicle route | 60 |
| Access street | Mixed pedestrian and vehicle route | 40 |
Mean travel distance and time to the nearest clinic, nearest hospital and the facility that diagnosed XDR TB, by district.
| District | n | Travel distance to nearest facility (kms) | Travel time to nearest facility (hrs) | Proportion Population | Travel distance to actual facility (kms) | Travel time to actual facility (hours) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic | Hospital | Clinic | Hospital | Urban | Rural | ||||
| Sisonke | 6 | 6.37 | 24.55 | 0.08 | 1.02 | 20.3 | 79.7 | 119.93 | 1.50 |
| Zululand | 31 | 4.89 | 17.36 | 0.12 | 0.80 | 19.5 | 80.5 | 72.12 | 0.90 |
| uMkhanyakude | 22 | 3.63 | 20.24 | 0.12 | 2.86 | 5.6 | 94.4 | 89.91 | 1.12 |
| uMzinyathi | 65 | 3.63 | 14.42 | 0.11 | 1.16 | 17.4 | 82.6 | 42.99 | 0.54 |
| Uthungulu | 36 | 2.82 | 9.5 | 0.05 | 2.05 | 18.1 | 81.9 | 201.37 | 2.52 |
| uThukela | 17 | 2.73 | 38.87 | 0.08 | 0.85 | 30.3 | 69.7 | 50.73 | 0.63 |
| Ugu | 37 | 2.47 | 23.06 | 0.05 | 1.43 | 17.6 | 82.4 | 174.54 | 2.18 |
| uMgungundlovu | 39 | 2.23 | 18.9 | 0.06 | 0.25 | 58.1 | 41.9 | 36.11 | 0.45 |
| iLembe | 15 | 2.09 | 9.32 | 0.04 | 1.81 | 36.5 | 63.5 | 45.59 | 0.57 |
| Amajuba | 5 | 0.74 | 11.6 | 0.27 | 0.95 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 201.39 | 2.52 |
| eThekwini | 131 | 0.49 | 6 | 0.01 | 0.73 | 84.8 | 15.2 | 19.57 | 0.24 |
| TOTAL | 403 | 2.31 | 13.98 | 0.06 | 1.11 | 33 | 67 | 68.98 | 0.86 |
Fig 2Mean actual distance travelled by participants to the health facility at which XDR TB was diagnosed, mean distance travelled farther than the nearest clinic, and proportion that sought care outside their district and municipality of residence, districts and municipalities of KwaZulu-Natal, 2011–2014.
Actual distance travelled by participants (n = 404) to the health facility at which XDR TB was diagnosed, KwaZulu-Natal, 2011–2014.
| Actual Distance Travelled | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| >200 km | 21 | 5.22 |
| 100–200km | 36 | 8.96 |
| 50–100 km | 52 | 12.94 |
| 30–50 km | 47 | 11.69 |
| 10–30 km | 103 | 25.62 |
| 5–10 km | 49 | 12.19 |
| <5 km | 94 | 23.38 |
Fig 3Spider plot showing straight line distance from participants’ residence to the health facility at which they presented that diagnosed XDR TB, KwaZulu-Natal, 2011–2014.