Courtney M Yuen1,2, Ana K Millones3, Jerome T Galea4,5, Daniela Puma3, Judith Jimenez3, Leonid Lecca6,3, Mercedes C Becerra6, Salmaan Keshavjee7,6. 1. Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Courtney_Yuen@hms.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Courtney_Yuen@hms.harvard.edu. 3. Socios En Salud Sucursal Perú, Lima, Peru. 4. School of Social Work, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 5. College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 6. Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To ensure patient-centered tuberculosis preventive treatment, it is important to consider factors that make it easier for patients to complete treatment. However, there is little published literature about patient preferences for different preventive treatment regimen options, particularly from countries with high tuberculosis burdens. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative research study using a framework analysis approach to understand tuberculosis preventive treatment preferences among household contacts. We conducted three focus group discussions with 16 members of families affected by tuberculosis in Lima, Peru. Participants were asked to vote for preferred preventive treatment regimens and discuss the reasons behind their choices. Coding followed a deductive approach based on prior research, with data-driven codes added. RESULTS: In total, 7 (44%) participants voted for 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine, 4 (25%) chose 3 months isoniazid and rifampicin, 3 (19%) chose 4 months rifampicin, and 2 (13%) chose 6 months isoniazid. Preferences for shorter regimens over 6 months of isoniazid were driven by concerns over "getting tired" or "getting bored" of taking medications, the difficulty of remembering to take medications, side effects, and interference with daily life. For some, weekly dosing was perceived as being easier to remember and less disruptive, leading to a preference for 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine, which is dosed weekly. However, among caregivers, having a child-friendly formulation was more important than regimen duration. Caregivers reported difficulty in administering pills to children, and preferred treatments available as syrup or dispersible formulations. CONCLUSIONS: There is demand for shorter regimens and child-friendly formulations for tuberculosis preventive treatment in high-burden settings. Individual preferences differ, suggesting that patient-centered care would best be supported by having multiple shorter regimens available.
BACKGROUND: To ensure patient-centered tuberculosis preventive treatment, it is important to consider factors that make it easier for patients to complete treatment. However, there is little published literature about patient preferences for different preventive treatment regimen options, particularly from countries with high tuberculosis burdens. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative research study using a framework analysis approach to understand tuberculosis preventive treatment preferences among household contacts. We conducted three focus group discussions with 16 members of families affected by tuberculosis in Lima, Peru. Participants were asked to vote for preferred preventive treatment regimens and discuss the reasons behind their choices. Coding followed a deductive approach based on prior research, with data-driven codes added. RESULTS: In total, 7 (44%) participants voted for 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine, 4 (25%) chose 3 months isoniazid and rifampicin, 3 (19%) chose 4 months rifampicin, and 2 (13%) chose 6 months isoniazid. Preferences for shorter regimens over 6 months of isoniazid were driven by concerns over "getting tired" or "getting bored" of taking medications, the difficulty of remembering to take medications, side effects, and interference with daily life. For some, weekly dosing was perceived as being easier to remember and less disruptive, leading to a preference for 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine, which is dosed weekly. However, among caregivers, having a child-friendly formulation was more important than regimen duration. Caregivers reported difficulty in administering pills to children, and preferred treatments available as syrup or dispersible formulations. CONCLUSIONS: There is demand for shorter regimens and child-friendly formulations for tuberculosis preventive treatment in high-burden settings. Individual preferences differ, suggesting that patient-centered care would best be supported by having multiple shorter regimens available.
Authors: Lisa A Ronald; J Mark FitzGerald; Gillian Bartlett-Esquilant; Kevin Schwartzman; Andrea Benedetti; Jean-François Boivin; Dick Menzies Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: S Swindells; M Siccardi; S E Barrett; D B Olsen; J A Grobler; A T Podany; E Nuermberger; P Kim; C E Barry; A Owen; D Hazuda; C Flexner Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: A Fernández-Villar; B Sopeña; J Fernández-Villar; R Vázquez-Gallardo; F Ulloa; V Leiro; M Mosteiro; L Piñeiro Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Y Hirsch-Moverman; J E Mantell; L Lebelo; C Wynn; A C Hesseling; A A Howard; S Nachman; K Frederix; L B Maama; W M El-Sadr Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Courtney M Yuen; Ana K Millones; Carmen C Contreras; Leonid Lecca; Mercedes C Becerra; Salmaan Keshavjee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daria Szkwarko; Yael Hirsch-Moverman; Lienki Du Plessis; Karen Du Preez; Catherine Carr; Anna M Mandalakas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juan F Vesga; Christian Lienhardt; Placide Nsengiyumva; Jonathon R Campbell; Olivia Oxlade; Saskia den Boon; Dennis Falzon; Kevin Schwartzman; Gavin Churchyard; Nimalan Arinaminpathy Journal: BMC Med Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 11.150
Authors: Fred C Semitala; Jillian L Kadota; Allan Musinguzi; Juliet Nabunje; Fred Welishe; Anne Nakitende; Lydia Akello; Opira Bishop; Devika Patel; Amanda Sammann; Payam Nahid; Robert Belknap; Moses R Kamya; Margaret A Handley; Patrick P J Phillips; Anne Katahoire; Christopher A Berger; Noah Kiwanuka; Achilles Katamba; David W Dowdy; Adithya Cattamanchi Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Yael Hirsch-Moverman; Michael Strauss; Gavin George; Anthony Mutiti; Arnold Mafukidze; Siphesihle Shongwe; Gloria Sisi Dube; Wafaa M El Sadr; Joanne E Mantell; Andrea A Howard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 3.006