↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative evaluation of hospital versus community-based management of patients on injectable treatments for tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
A qualitative evaluation of hospital versus community-based management of patients on injectable treatments for tuberculosis
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-6015-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. B. Cohen, M. Phiri, H. Banda, S. B. Squire, I. Namakhoma, N. Desmond

Abstract

Patients being treated for recurrent or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) require long courses of injectable anti-tuberculous agents. In order to maintain strong TB control programmes, it is vital that the experiences of people who receive long-term injectables for TB are well understood. To investigate the feasibility of a novel model of care delivery, a clinical trial (The TB-RROC Study) was conducted at two central hospitals in Malawi. Hospital-based care was compared to a community-based approach for patients on TB retreatment in which 'guardians' (patient-nominated lay people) were trained to deliver injections to patients at home. This study is the qualitative evaluation of the TB-RROC trial. It examines the experiences of people receiving injectables as part of TB treatment delivered in hospital and community-based settings. A qualitative evaluation of the TB-RROC intervention was conducted using phenomenographic methods. Trial participants were purposively sampled, and in-depth interviews were conducted with patients and guardians in both arms of the trial. Key informant interviews and observations in the wards and community were performed. Thematic content analysis was used to derive analytical themes. Fourteen patients, 12 guardians and 9 key informants were interviewed. Three key themes relating to TB retreatment emerged: medical experiences (including symptoms, treatment, and HIV); the effects of the physical environment (conditions on the ward, disruption to daily routines and livelihoods); and trust (in other people, the community and in the health system). Experiences were affected by the nature of a person's prior role in their community and resulted in a range of emotional responses. Patients and guardians in the community benefited from better environment, social interactions and financial stability. Concerns were expressed about the potential for patients' health or relationships to be adversely affected in the community. These potential concerns were rarely realised. Guardian administered intramuscular injections were safe and well received. Community-based care offered many advantages over hospital-based care for patients receiving long-term injectable treatment for TB and their families.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 45 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 51 42%
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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,533,782
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#14,074
of 15,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,102
of 341,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#217
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 341,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.