↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors for differential outcome following directly observed treatment (DOT) of slum and non-slum tuberculosis patients: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk factors for differential outcome following directly observed treatment (DOT) of slum and non-slum tuberculosis patients: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1835-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert E. Snyder, Mariel A. Marlow, Melissa E. Phuphanich, Lee W. Riley, Ethel Leonor Noia Maciel

Abstract

Brazil's National Tuberculosis Control Program seeks to improve tuberculosis (TB) treatment in vulnerable populations. Slum residents are more vulnerable to TB due to a variety of factors, including their overcrowded living conditions, substandard infrastructure, and limited access to healthcare compared to their non-slum dwelling counterparts. Directly observed treatment (DOT) has been suggested to improve TB treatment outcomes among vulnerable populations, but the program's differential effectiveness among urban slum and non-slum residents is not known. We retrospectively compared the impact of DOT on TB treatment outcome in residents of slum and non-slum census tracts in Rio de Janeiro reported to the Brazilian Notifiable Disease Database in 2010. Patient residential addresses were geocoded to census tracts from the 2010 Brazilian Census, which were identified as slum (aglomerados subnormais -AGSN) and non-slum (non-AGSN) by the Census Bureau. Homeless and incarcerated cases as well as those geocoded outside the city's limits were excluded from analysis. In 2010, 6,601 TB cases were geocoded within Rio de Janeiro; 1,874 (27.4 %) were residents of AGSN, and 4,794 (72.6 %) did not reside in an AGSN area. DOT coverage among AGSN cases was 35.2 % (n = 638), while the coverage in non-AGSN cases was 26.2 % (n = 1,234). Clinical characteristics, treatment, follow-up, cure, death and abandonment were similar in both AGSN and non-AGSN TB patients. After adjusting for covariates, AGSN TB cases on DOT had 1.67 (95 % CI: 1.17, 2.4) times the risk of cure, 0.61 (95 % CI: 0.41, 0.90) times the risk of abandonment, and 0.1 (95 % CI: 0.01, 0.77) times the risk of death from TB compared to non-AGSN TB cases not on DOT. While DOT coverage was low among TB cases in both AGSN and non-AGSN communities, it had a greater impact on TB cure rate in AGSN than in non-AGSN populations in the city of Rio de Janeiro.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 40 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 46 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,170,573
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,229
of 7,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,335
of 321,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#145
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,812 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,749 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.