| Literature DB >> 35591891 |
Anwita Khaitan1, Sanjay K Rai1, Anand Krishnan1, Sanjeev K Gupta1, Shashi Kant1, Gopi C Khilnani2.
Abstract
Introduction India is the biggest contributor to the global incidence of tuberculosis (TB). A major reason behind the persistently high incidence of TB in India is treatment loss-to-follow-up (LTFU). The consequences of LTFU include continuous transmission to uninfected individuals, drug resistance, and a higher rate of death in incompletely treated patients. It is a significant hurdle to making India 'TB-Free' by 2025. Hence, we conducted a community-based qualitative study to understand the determinants of treatment of LTFU in TB patients in the Faridabad district of Haryana, India. Methodology We enrolled TB patients who had completed treatment as well as those who had been LTFU. We also enrolled National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP) functionaries, healthcare providers, family members, and community members. In-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to understand stakeholders' perceptions of reasons for LTFU. The grounded theory approach was used with inductive analysis. Data were triangulated from stakeholders' interviews. Themes and sub-themes were identified. A Health Belief Model for TB treatment completion was developed. Results Fifty-eight IDIs and four FGDs were conducted between May-June 2018. The major themes influencing the treatment of LTFU which emerged from the analyses were - the role of external motivators, regular use of alcohol, lack of/or inappropriate knowledge related to treatment, lack of family support, and side effects of anti-tubercular drugs, and a poor experience with the health system. Stigma was not found to be a major determinant - in the few cases that it affected treatment, it spurred treatment completion rather than LTFU. "I completed the course with great difficulty. Then they started it again! […] I said-Sorry, sir, I can't go through this again. It's better to die once than to die a thousand deaths." - Fifty-one-year-old male patient who was lost-to-follow-up on re-treatment. Discussion This study was a comprehensive multi-stakeholder qualitative undertaking to identify the determinants of LTFU. Our qualitative approach explained the associations between LTFU and certain factors (e.g.: alcohol use, side effects, etc.) found in previous quantitative studies. The strength of this study was that we ensured participation by patients as well as all district-level stakeholders from the national health programme, which no previous qualitative study on the treatment LTFU in India had achieved. The entire qualitative analysis was done manually and in Hindi (the language in which interviews were conducted). Hence, no data were lost in translation. The limitation was that its findings were specific to the study area and study population, as is the case with all qualitative studies. Conclusion All healthcare providers should be sensitised to the determinants of treatment LTFU, so that they can pay special attention to at-risk patients and take appropriate steps to prevent LTFU. For instance, patients with a pattern of regular alcohol use should be counselled and may be referred to deaddiction centres, with the continuum of care maintained. The journey from tuberculosis diagnosis to treatment completion is often extremely traumatic for the patient. The onus to successfully complete treatment lies not with the patient alone, but with the health system as well.Entities:
Keywords: alcohol use; community-based; default; determinants; loss-to-follow-up; qualitative research; side effects; tuberculosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591891 PMCID: PMC9109944 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Sociodemographic characteristics of TB patient-participants from two Tuberculosis Units (TUs) of district Faridabad, Haryana, India.
SD - Standard Deviation; IQR - Inter-quartile range; INR - Indian National Rupee (76.3 INR = 1 USD w.e.f. 04 May 2022).
| Treatment LTFU (N=20) n (%) | Successful treatment (Treatment completion/Cure) (N=10) n (%) | |
| Mean age in completed years (SD) | 39 (14) | 38 (18) |
| Median age in completed years (IQR) | 42 (23-50) | 31 (22-57) |
| Gender | ||
| Male (%) | 16 (80) | 5 (50) |
| Female (%) | 4 (20) | 5 (50) |
| Marital status | ||
| Never married | 6 (30) | 1 (10) |
| Married | 10 (50) | 7 (70) |
| Separated or divorced | 2 (10) | 0 (0) |
| Widowed | 2 (10) | 2 (20) |
| Level of completed education | ||
| Illiterate | 6 (30) | 2 (20) |
| Primary | 9 (45) | 2 (20) |
| Secondary | 3 (15) | 2 (20) |
| Higher secondary | 1 (5) | 2 (20) |
| Graduate | 1 (5) | 2 (20) |
| Type of Profession | ||
| Unskilled | 6 (30) | 2 (20) |
| Semi-skilled | 14 (70) | 7 (70) |
| Skilled | 0 (0) | 1 (10) |
| Median monthly per capita income per capita in INR (IQR) | 9000 (6000-15000) | 8500 (5750-14250) |
| Source of treatment | ||
| Public | 17 (85) | 8 (80) |
| Private | 3 (15) | 2 (20) |
| Tuberculosis Unit (TU) | ||
| TU Mohna (Rural) | 13 (65) | 5 (50) |
| TU Ballabgarh (Urban) | 7 (35) | 5 (50) |
Stakeholders with whom in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in two Tuberculosis Units (TUs) in District Faridabad, Haryana, India.
| In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) | Number |
| IDIs with TB patients who were lost-to-follow-up (LTFU) or were on treatment after LTFU | 20 |
| IDIs with TB patients with successful outcome (Cure/Treatment Complete) | 10 |
| IDI with District Tuberculosis Officer | 1 |
| IDIs with Medical Officer – TB Control | 2 |
| IDIs with Health Supervisors at Primary Health Centres (PHCs) with Designated Microscopy Centres (DMCs) | 3 |
| IDIs with DMC Laboratory Technologists | 3 |
| IDIs with Peripheral Health Institution (PHI) Health Visitors | 2 |
| IDIs with DOTS Providers | 2 |
| IDIs with PHC Medical Officers-In-Charge | 5 |
| IDIs with Panchayati Raj Institute (PRI) Members | 3 |
| IDI with Senior Tuberculosis Laboratory Supervisor | 1 |
| IDIs with Senior Treatment Supervisors | 2 |
| IDIs with Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) | 4 |
| FGD with female community members | 1 |
| FGD with male community members | 1 |
| FGDs with DOTS providers | 2 |
Figure 1Health Belief Model for Tuberculosis Treatment Completion
COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist
| No. Item | Item No. | Guide questions/ description | Reported in section/ remarks |
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | |||
| Personal Characteristics | |||
| Interviewer/ facilitator | 1 | Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | Materials and methods |
| Credentials | 2 | What were the researcher’s credentials? E.g. PhD, MD | Materials and methods |
| Occupation | 3 | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | Materials and methods |
| Gender | 4 | Was the researcher male or female? | Materials and methods |
| Experience and training | 5 | What experience or training did the researcher have? | Materials and methods |
| Relationship with participants | |||
| Relationship established | 6 | Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Participant knowledge of the interviewer | 7 | What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Interviewer characteristics | 8 | What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/ facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Domain 2: Study design | |||
| Theoretical framework | |||
| Methodological orientation and Theory | 9 | What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis | Materials and methods – Data analysis |
| Participant selection | |||
| Sampling | 10 | How were participants selected? e.g., purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball | Materials and methods – Study setting and study participants |
| Method of approach | 11 | How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Sample size | 12 | How many participants were in the study? | Results |
| Non-participation | 13 | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | Results |
| Setting | |||
| Setting of data collection | 14 | Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Presence of non-participants | 15 | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Description of sample | 16 | What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date | Results |
| Data collection | |||
| Interview guide | 17 | Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? | Materials and methods – Development of tools |
| Repeat interviews | 18 | Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? | Results |
| Audio/ visual recording | 19 | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Field notes | 20 | Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? | Materials and methods – Data collection |
| Duration | 21 | What was the duration of the interviews or focus group? | Results |
| Data saturation | 22 | Was data saturation discussed? | Results |
| Transcripts returned | 23 | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/ or correction? | Yes, transcripts were discussed with all participants who could be recontacted. |
| Domain 3: Analysis and findings | |||
| Data analysis | |||
| Number of data coders | 24 | How many data coders coded the data? | Materials and methods – Data analysis |
| Description of the coding tree | 25 | Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? | Materials and methods – Data analysis |
| Derivation of themes | 26 | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? | Materials and methods – analysis; Results |
| Software | 27 | What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? | Material and methods – analysis (Manual analysis) |
| Participant checking | 28 | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | Yes, partially. All key informants provided feedback on the findings. Patient-participants could not be revisited due to logistical limitations (Repeating travel of approximately 350 km with 2-3 visits per patient was deemed infeasible). |
| Reporting | |||
| Quotations presented | 29 | Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/ findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g., participant number | Results – Determinants of treatment loss-to-follow-up |
| Data and findings consistent | 30 | Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? | Results |
| Clarity of major themes | 31 | Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? | Results |
| Clarity of minor themes | 32 | Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | Results |