↓ Skip to main content

The impact of rural residence and HIV infection on poor tuberculosis treatment outcomes in a large urban hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
The impact of rural residence and HIV infection on poor tuberculosis treatment outcomes in a large urban hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-017-0714-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aishatu Lawal Adamu, Muktar H. Aliyu, Najiba Aliyu Galadanci, Baba Maiyaki Musa, Umar Muhammad Lawan, Usman Bashir, Ibrahim Abubakar

Abstract

Successful tuberculosis (TB) treatment is essential to effective TB control. TB-HIV coinfection, social determinants and access to services influenced by rural residence can affect treatment outcome. We examined the separate and joint effects of rural residence and HIV infection on poor treatment outcome among patients enrolled in a large TB treatment centre in Kano, Nigeria. We retrospectively analysed a cohort of patients with TB enrolled in a large urban TB clinic in northern Nigeria, from January 2010 to December 2014. Poor treatment outcome was defined as death, default or treatment failure. We used Poisson regression to model rates and determine the relative risks (and 95% confidence intervals, CI) of poor treatment outcomes. Among 1381 patients included in the analysis, 28.4% were rural residents; 39.8% were HIV-positive; and 46.1% had a poor treatment outcome. Approximately 65 and 38% of rural and urban residents, respectively, had a poor treatment outcome. Rural residents had 2.74 times (95% CI: 2.27-3.29) the risk of having a poor treatment outcome compared to urban residents. HIV-positive patients had 1.4 times (95% CI: 1.16-1.69) the risk of poor treatment outcome compared to HIV-negative patients. The proportion of poor treatment outcome attributable to rural residence (population attributable fraction, PAF) was 25.6%. The PAF for HIV infection was 11.9%. The effect of rural residence on poor treatment outcome among HIV-negative patients (aRR:4.07; 95%CI:3.15-5.25) was more than twice that among HIV-positive patients (aRR:1.99; 95%CI:1.49-2.64). Rural residents attending a large Nigerian TB clinic are at increased risk of having poor treatment outcomes, and this risk is amplified among those that are HIV-negative. Our findings indicate that rural coverage of HIV services may be better than TB services. These findings highlight the importance of expanding coverage of TB services to ensure prompt diagnosis and commencement of treatment, especially among rural-dwellers in resource-limited settings.

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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 41 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 47 46%
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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,487,739
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,551
of 1,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,239
of 442,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#37
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 442,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.