| Literature DB >> 31856817 |
Jonathan Izudi1, Imelda K Tamwesigire2, Francis Bajunirwe2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimally performing tuberculosis (TB) programs are characterized by treatment success rate (TSR) of at least 90%. In rural eastern Uganda, and elsewhere in sub Saharan Africa, TSR varies considerably across district TB programs and the reasons for the differences are unclear. This study explored factors associated with the low and high TSR across four districts in rural eastern Uganda.Entities:
Keywords: Barriers; Facilitators; Health systems strengthening; Treatment success; Tuberculosis; Uganda
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31856817 PMCID: PMC6923886 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4834-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Participant socio-demographic characteristics
| Characteristics | Level | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Type of respondent | District TB and Leprosy Supervisor | 3 (27.3) |
| Laboratory focal person | 2 (18.2) | |
| TB focal person | 6 (54.5) | |
| Participant distribution | District with low level of TSR | 6 (54.5) |
| District with high level of TSR | 5 (45.5) | |
| Respondent cadre | Clinical officer | 4 (36.4) |
| Laboratory technician | 2 (18.2) | |
| Nursing officer | 5 (45.4) | |
| Sex | Female | 3 (27.3) |
| Male | 8 (72.7) | |
| Age category (years) | ≤30 | 2 (18.2) |
| > 30 | 9 (81.8) | |
| Mean (SD) | 33.6 ± 4.78 | |
| Range | 27–34 | |
| District of respondent | Kumi | 2 (18.2) |
| Ngora | 3 (27.3) | |
| Serere | 2 (18.2) | |
| Soroti | 4 (36.4) | |
| Work experience (years) | < 5 | 3 (27.3) |
| ≥5 | 8 (72.7) | |
| Mean (SD) | 4.82 ± 1.40 | |
| Range | 2–7 years |
Emerging themes
| Themes | Sub-themes |
|---|---|
| Facilitators of treatment success rate | • Use of data to make decisions and design interventions |
| • Continuous quality improvement | |
| • Capacity building | |
| • Prioritization of better management of people with TB | |
| Barriers to treatment success rate | • Lack of motivated and dedicated TB focal persons |
| • Scarce and at times no funding for TB activities | |
| • Poor implementation of community-based DOTS |