Dataset Information

Patient and Provider Reported Reasons for Lost to Follow Up in MDRTB Treatment: A Qualitative Study from a Drug Resistant TB Centre in India.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis (MDR TB) is emerging public health concern globally. Lost to follow-up (LTFU) is one of the key challenge in MDRTB treatment. In 2013, 18% of MDR TB patients were reported LTFU in India. A qualitative study was conducted to obtain better understanding of both patient and provider related factors for LTFU among MDR TB treatment. METHODS:Qualitative semi-structured personal interviews were conducted with 20 MDRTB patients reported as LTFU and 10 treatment providers in seven districts linked to Nagpur Drug resistant TB Centre (DRTBC) during August 2012-February 2013. Interviews were transcribed and inductive content analysis was performed to derive emergent themes. RESULTS:We found multiple factors influencing MDR TB treatment adherence. Barriers to treatment adherence included drug side effects, a perceived lack of provider support, patient financial constraints, conflicts with the timing of treatment services, alcoholism and social stigma. CONCLUSIONS:Patient adherence to treatment is multi-factorial and involves individual patient factors, provider factors, and community factors. Addressing issue of LTFU during MDRTB treatment requires enhanced efforts towards resolving medical problems like adverse drug effects, developing short duration treatment regimens, reducing pill burden, motivational counselling, flexible timings for DOT services, social, family support for patients & improving awareness about disease.

SUBMITTER: Deshmukh RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4547708 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient and Provider Reported Reasons for Lost to Follow Up in MDRTB Treatment: A Qualitative Study from a Drug Resistant TB Centre in India.

Deshmukh Rajesh D RD Dhande D J DJ Sachdeva Kuldeep Singh KS Sreenivas Achuthan A Kumar A M V AM Satyanarayana Srinath S Parmar Malik M Moonan Patrick K PK Lo Terrence Q TQ

PloS one 20150824 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis (MDR TB) is emerging public health concern globally. Lost to follow-up (LTFU) is one of the key challenge in MDRTB treatment. In 2013, 18% of MDR TB patients were reported LTFU in India. A qualitative study was conducted to obtain better understanding of both patient and provider related factors for LTFU among MDR TB treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Qualitative semi-structured personal interviews were conducted with 20 MDRTB patients reported as LTF ...[more]

PMID: 26301748

Similar Datasets

Project description:Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a "loss of faith" in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual care models are used to follow-up patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. There is increasing interest in the expansion of virtual, or even remote-only, CIED care models to alleviate resource and economic burden to both patients and specialty device clinics and to maintain or improve equity and access to high-quality cardiovascular care. This qualitative framework synthesis aims to identify barriers and enablers to virtual care models from both the perspective of the patient and device clinics. How setting, context, equity factors or other aspects influence these factors, or satisfaction with care, will also be investigated.MethodsWe will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, other EBM Reviews, and trial registry databases. Screening will be completed by two independent review authors. Original research articles having a qualitative component (i.e., qualitative, mixed-, or multi-method) are eligible. Study populations of interest are (a) individuals with a CIED or (b) healthcare providers involved in any aspect of virtual or remote follow-up of patients with CIEDs. Eligibility will be restricted to studies published after January 1, 2000 in English or French. Data will be captured using standardized templates based on the domains and constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Warwick Patient Experiences Framework. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be applied to all included studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach will be applied to assess and summarize confidence in key findings. Reporting will follow the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement. Detailed descriptive results will be presented, and summary of qualitative findings tables will be produced.DiscussionWhile a number of trials have captured the clinical effectiveness and safety of virtual follow-up for CIEDs, there has been less attention given to factors affecting use and implementation of remote care by patients and healthcare providers or satisfaction with care. Results from this qualitative framework synthesis will provide important lived experience data from both patients and healthcare providers which will be essential to incorporate in clinical guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020160533.

Project description:BackgroundIncomplete ascertainment of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is likely to bias final study results if reasons for unavailability of patient data are associated with the outcome of interest. The primary objective of this study is to assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect. The secondary objectives are to describe, for published RCTs, (1) the reporting of loss to follow-up information, (2) the analytic methods used for handling loss to follow-up information, and (3) the extent of reported loss to follow-up.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of reports of RCTs recently published in five top general medical journals. Eligible RCTs will demonstrate statistically significant effect estimates with respect to primary outcomes that are patient-important and expressed as binary data. Teams of 2 reviewers will independently determine eligibility and extract relevant information from each eligible trial using standardized, pre-piloted forms. To assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect we will, for varying assumptions about the outcomes of participants lost to follow-up (LTFU), calculate (1) the percentage of RCTs that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change in effect estimate across RCTs. The different assumptions we will test are the following: (1) none of the LTFU participants had the event; (2) all LTFU participants had the event; (3) all LTFU participants in the treatment group had the event; none of those in the control group had it (worst case scenario); (4) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased, with a higher relative increase in the intervention group; and (5) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group.DiscussionWe aim to make our objectives and methods transparent. The results of this study may have important implications for both clinical trialists and users of the medical literature.

Dataset Information

Patient and Provider Reported Reasons for Lost to Follow Up in MDRTB Treatment: A Qualitative Study from a Drug Resistant TB Centre in India.

Publications

Patient and Provider Reported Reasons for Lost to Follow Up in MDRTB Treatment: A Qualitative Study from a Drug Resistant TB Centre in India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets