↓ Skip to main content

Pathways to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment initiation: a qualitative comparison of patients’ experiences in the era of rapid molecular diagnostic tests

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 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
Pathways to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment initiation: a qualitative comparison of patients’ experiences in the era of rapid molecular diagnostic tests
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1145-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pren Naidoo, Margaret van Niekerk, Elizabeth du Toit, Nulda Beyers, Natalie Leon

Abstract

Although new molecular diagnostic tests such as GenoType MTBDRplus and Xpert® MTB/RIF have reduced multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment initiation times, patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment initiation are not known. This study aimed to explore and compare MDR-TB patients' experiences of their diagnostic and treatment initiation pathway in GenoType MTBDRplus and Xpert® MTB/RIF-based diagnostic algorithms. The study was undertaken in Cape Town, South Africa where primary health-care services provided free TB diagnosis and treatment. A smear, culture and GenoType MTBDRplus diagnostic algorithm was used in 2010, with Xpert® MTB/RIF phased in from 2011-2013. Participants diagnosed in each algorithm at four facilities were purposively sampled, stratifying by age, gender and MDR-TB risk profiles. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. Through constant comparative analysis we induced common and divergent themes related to symptom recognition, health-care access, testing for MDR-TB and treatment initiation within and between groups. Data were triangulated with clinical information and health visit data from a structured questionnaire. We identified both enablers and barriers to early MDR-TB diagnosis and treatment. Half the patients had previously been treated for TB; most recognised recurring symptoms and reported early health-seeking. Those who attributed symptoms to other causes delayed health-seeking. Perceptions of poor public sector services were prevalent and may have contributed both to deferred health-seeking and to patient's use of the private sector, contributing to delays. However, once on treatment, most patients expressed satisfaction with public sector care. Two patients in the Xpert® MTB/RIF-based algorithm exemplified its potential to reduce delays, commencing MDR-TB treatment within a week of their first health contact. However, most patients in both algorithms experienced substantial delays. Avoidable health system delays resulted from providers not testing for TB at initial health contact, non-adherence to testing algorithms, results not being available and failure to promptly recall patients with positive results. Whilst the introduction of rapid tests such as Xpert® MTB/RIF can expedite MDR-TB diagnosis and treatment initiation, the full benefits are unlikely to be realised without reducing delays in health-seeking and addressing the structural barriers present in the health-care system.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 203 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 24%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 44 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 12%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 51 25%
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 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,429,829
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,476
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,920
of 284,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#110
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 284,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.