↓ Skip to main content

Improving active case finding for tuberculosis in South Africa: informing innovative implementation approaches in the context of the Kharitode trial through formative research

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 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
Improving active case finding for tuberculosis in South Africa: informing innovative implementation approaches in the context of the Kharitode trial through formative research
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0206-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deanna Kerrigan, Nora West, Carrie Tudor, Colleen F. Hanrahan, Limakatso Lebina, Reginah Msandiwa, Lesego Mmolawa, Neil Martinson, David Dowdy

Abstract

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading infectious killer worldwide, with approximately 1.8 million deaths in 2015. While effective treatment exists, implementation of active case finding (ACF) methods to identify persons with active TB in a timely and cost-effective manner continues to be a major challenge in resource-constrained settings. Limited qualitative work has been conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of implementation barriers. Qualitative research was conducted to inform the development of three ACF strategies for TB to be evaluated as part of the Kharitode cluster-randomised trial being conducted in a rural province of South Africa. This included 25 semi-structured in-depth interviews among 8 TB patients, 7 of their household members and 10 clinic health workers, as well as 4 focus group discussions (2 rural and 2 main town locations) with 6-8 participants each (n = 27). Interviews and focus group discussions explored the context, advantages and limitations, as well as the implications of three ACF methods. Content analysis was utilised to document salient themes regarding their feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness. Study participants (TB patients and community members) reported difficulty identifying TB symptoms and seeking care in a timely fashion. In turn, all stakeholder groups felt that more proactive case finding strategies would be beneficial. Clinic-based strategies (including screening all patients regardless of visit purpose) were seen as the most acceptable method based on participants' preference ranking of the ACF strategies. However, given the resource constraints experienced by the public healthcare system in South Africa, many participants doubted whether it would be the most effective strategy. Household outreach and incentive-based strategies were described as promising, but participants reported some concerns (e.g. stigma in case of household-based and ethical concerns in the case of incentives). Participants offered insights into how to optimise each strategy, tailoring implementation to community needs (low TB knowledge) and realities (financial constraints, transport, time off from work). Findings suggest different methods of TB ACF are likely to engage different populations, highlighting the utility of a comprehensive approach. Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02808507 ). Registered June 1, 2016. The participants in this formative study are not trial participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 197 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 17%
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 13%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 45 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 20%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 53 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,098,251
of 23,668,780 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#796
of 1,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,546
of 317,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#19
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,668,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 317,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.