↓ Skip to main content

Patient satisfaction on tuberculosis treatment service and adherence to treatment in public health facilities of Sidama zone, South Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 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
Patient satisfaction on tuberculosis treatment service and adherence to treatment in public health facilities of Sidama zone, South Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zekariyas Sahile Nezenega, Yohannes H/Michael Gacho, Tadese Ejigu Tafere

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient compliance is a key factor in treatment success. Satisfied patients are more likely to utilize health services, comply with medical treatment, and continue with the health care providers. Yet, the national tuberculosis control program failed to address some of these aspects in order to achieve the national targets. Hence, this study attempted to investigate patient satisfaction and adherence to tuberculosis treatment in Sidama zone of south Ethiopia. METHODS: A facility based cross sectional study was conducted using quantitative method of data collection from March to April 2011. A sample of 531 respondents on anti TB treatment from 11 health centers and 1 hospital were included in the study. The sample size to each facility was allocated using probability proportional to size allocation, and study participants for the interview were selected by systematic random sampling. A Pre tested, interviewer administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. Collected data was edited, coded and entered to Epi data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 16. Confirmatory factor analysis was done to identify factors that explain most of the variance observed in most of the manifested variables. Bivariate and Multivariate analysis were computed to analyze the data.Result: The study revealed 90% of the study participants were satisfied with TB treatment service. However, 26% of respondents had poor adherence to their TB treatment. Patient perceived on professional care, time spent with health care provider, accessibility, technical competency, convenience (cleanliness) and consultation and relational empathy were independent predictors of overall patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). In addition to this, perceived waiting time was significantly associated with patient satisfaction (Beta = 0.262). In multivariate analysis occupational status, area of residence, perceived time spent with health care provider, perceived accessibility, perceived waiting time, perceived professional care and over all patient satisfaction were significantly associated with adherence to TB treatment (P < 0.05). Moreover, patient waiting time at reception room (Adjusted OR = 1.022, 95% CI 1.009, 1.0035) and Patient treatment phase (Adjusted OR = 0.295, 95% CI 0.172, 0.507) were independent predictor of adherence to TB treatment. CONCLUSION: The finding of this study showed that patients' perceptions on health care provider interaction had a significant influence on patient satisfaction and adherence to TB treatment. Moreover, absence of drugs and long waiting time had a negative outcome on patient adherence. Therefore, the problem needs an urgent attention from programme managers and health care providers to intervene the challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 260 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 27%
Student > Bachelor 34 13%
Student > Postgraduate 22 8%
Researcher 19 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Other 41 16%
Unknown 60 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 3%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 71 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 April 2013.
All research outputs
#16,992,107
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,248
of 8,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,247
of 210,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#81
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. 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 210,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.