↓ Skip to main content

How much is tuberculosis screening worth? Estimating the value of active case finding for tuberculosis in South Africa, China, and India

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
203 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
How much is tuberculosis screening worth? Estimating the value of active case finding for tuberculosis in South Africa, China, and India
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0216-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew S Azman, Jonathan E Golub, David W Dowdy

Abstract

BackgroundCurrent approaches are unlikely to achieve the aggressive global tuberculosis (TB) control targets set for 2035 and beyond. Active case finding (ACF) may be an important tool for augmenting existing strategies, but the cost-effectiveness of ACF remains uncertain. Program evaluators can often measure the cost of ACF per TB case detected, but how this accessible measure translates into traditional metrics of cost-effectiveness, such as the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY), remains unclear.MethodsWe constructed dynamic models of TB in India, China, and South Africa to explore the medium-term impact and cost-effectiveness of generic ACF activities, conceptualized separately as discrete (2-year) campaigns and as continuous activities integrated into ongoing TB control programs. Our primary outcome was the cost per DALY, measured in relationship to the cost per TB case actively detected and started on treatment.ResultsDiscrete campaigns costing up to $1,200 (95% uncertainty range [UR] 850¿2,043) per case actively detected and started on treatment in India, $3,800 (95% UR 2,706¿6,392) in China, and $9,400 (95% UR 6,957¿13,221) in South Africa were all highly cost-effective (cost per DALY averted less than per capita gross domestic product). Prolonged integration was even more effective and cost-effective. Short-term assessments of ACF dramatically underestimated potential longer term gains; for example, an assessment of an ACF program at 2 years might find a non-significant 11% reduction in prevalence, but a 10-year evaluation of that same intervention would show a 33% reduction.ConclusionsACF can be a powerful and highly cost-effective tool in the fight against TB. Given that short-term assessments may dramatically underestimate medium-term effectiveness, current willingness to pay may be too low. ACF should receive strong consideration as a basic tool for TB control in most high-burden settings, even when it may cost over $1,000 to detect and initiate treatment for each extra case of active TB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 202 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 23%
Student > Master 42 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 41 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 13%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 54 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,970,403
of 23,505,010 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,783
of 3,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,374
of 262,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#49
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,505,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 262,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.