Open Access

Community based interventions for the prevention and control of tuberculosis

  • Ahmed Arshad1,
  • Rehana A Salam1,
  • Zohra S Lassi1,
  • Jai K Das1,
  • Imama Naqvi1 and
  • Zulfiqar A Bhutta2, 3Email author
Infectious Diseases of Poverty20143:27

https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-9957-3-27

Received: 5 January 2014

Accepted: 6 June 2014

Published: 1 August 2014

Abstract

In 2012, an estimated 8.6 million people developed tuberculosis (TB) and 1.3 million died from the disease. With its recent resurgence with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); TB prevention and management has become further challenging. We systematically evaluated the effectiveness of community based interventions (CBI) for the prevention and treatment of TB and a total of 41 studies were identified for inclusion. Findings suggest that CBI for TB prevention and case detection showed significant increase in TB detection rates (RR: 3.1, 95% CI: 2.92, 3.28) with non-significant impact on TB incidence. CBI for treating patients with active TB showed an overall improvement in treatment success rates (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.11) and evidence from a single study suggests significant reduction in relapse rate (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.39). The results were consistent for various study design and delivery mechanism. Qualitative synthesis suggests that community based TB treatment delivery through community health workers (CHW) not only improved access and service utilization but also contributed to capacity building and improving the routine TB recording and reporting systems. CBI coupled with the DOTS strategy seem to be an effective approach, however there is a need to evaluate various community-based integrated delivery models for relative effectiveness.

Keywords

Community-based interventionsTuberculosisDOTSintegrated deliveryCHWs

Multilingual abstracts

Please see Additional file 1 for translations of the abstract into the six official working languages of the United Nations.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global health problem. In 2012, an estimated 8.6 million people developed TB and 1.3 million died from the disease [1]. The number of TB deaths is unacceptably large given that most of these deaths are preventable. With the recent resurgence related to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), TB prevention and management has become further challenging [24]. TB is preventable as well as curable and its transmission could be prevented by prompt identification and treatment of the infected person. However; ensuring treatment completion is crucial for the prevention of relapse and secondary drug resistance. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Stop TB Strategy based on the Directly Observed Therapy, Short-course (DOTS) to control TB. The strategy aims to ensure that patients take a standard short-course of chemotherapy under guided supervision to cure the disease as well as to prevent transmission. Patients are assisted through their treatment regimen and encouraged to treatment completion in order to prevent resistance to the available anti-TB drugs. DOTS has been delivered by health workers, community volunteers, lay health workers and even family members [5]. For further details on TB burden, epidemiology and intervention coverage, refer to previous paper in this series [6].

Considering the recent shift in epidemiological presence of TB, there is a legitimate call for integration of therapeutic services especially with HIV [7]. Since both diseases require long term treatment regimens, community based support may play a defining role towards prevention and control of these syndemic diseases of poverty. Moreover, integration of services in low-income countries may prove beneficial in terms of cost-effectiveness and decrease demand on health service infrastructure. However, there is a need to gauge whether these strategies lead to effective treatment outcomes. This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of community based interventions (CBI) for the prevention and treatment of TB.

Methods

We systematically reviewed literature published by September 2013 to identify studies evaluating CBI for TB as outlined in our conceptual framework [8]. Our priority was to select existing randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental and before/after studies in which the intervention was delivered within community settings and the reported outcomes were relevant. A comprehensive search strategy was developed using appropriate key words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free text terms. The search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane libraries, EMBASE and WHO Regional Databases; additional studies were identified by hand searching references from included studies. Studies were excluded if the intervention was purely facility-based or had a facility-based component. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected and double data abstracted on a standardized abstraction sheet. Quality assessment of the included RCT was done using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool [9]. We conducted meta-analysis for individual studies using the software Review Manager 5.1. Pooled statistics were reported as the relative risk (RR) for categorical variables and standard mean difference (SMD) for continuous variables between the experimental and control groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis was conducted for therapeutic and preventive (screening) CBI, integrated and non-integrated CBI and by type of studies. The detailed methodology is described in previous paper [8].

Review

A total of 7,772 titles were identified from all databases and 107 full texts were screened. After screening, forty one [1050] studies met the inclusion criteria; 34 RCT and 7 before/after studies (Figure 1). From the included RCT, 18 were adequately randomized while five studies reported adequate sequence generation (Table 1). Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding of the participants and assessors was not possible. Studies provided insufficient information on selective reporting which limited us from making any judgment. Ten of the included studies focused on TB prevention and case detection while 31 studies were on treatment of patients with active TB. Interventions involved community based delivery of DOTS; community mobilization and support; education and training; and monetary incentives for treatment adherence. Most of the CBI utilized community health workers (CHW) or family members as part of the delivery strategy. Table 2 describes the characteristics of included studies.
Figure 1

Search flow diagram.

Table 1

Quality assessment of the included RCTs

Article

Randomization

Sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants

Blinding of assessors

Selective reporting

Atkins 2011 [11]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Barker 2002 [12]

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

No

Clarke 2005 [15]

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Colvin 2003 [16]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

Yes

Corbett 2010 [17]

Yes

Not clear

Yes

No

Yes

No

Dudley 2003 [19]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

No

Fairall 2005 [20]

Yes

Yes

Not clear

No

Yes

No

Ferreira 2011 [21]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

No

Filho 2009 [14]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

Yes

Kironde 2002 [23]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

No

Vieira 2011 [31]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

White 2002 [33]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

No

Zwarenstein 2000 [35]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Vassal 2002 [30]

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Prado 2011 [27]

No

No

No

No

No

No

Mafigiri 2012 [24]

No

No

No

No

Not clear

No

Niazi 2003 [26]

No

No

No

No

Not clear

No

Uwimana 2012 [28]

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

No

Yassin 2013 [34]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

No

CDI group

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Miti 2003 [25]

No

No

No

Not clear

Not clear

No

Zwarenstein 1998 [50]

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

No

No

No

Chaisson 2001 [37]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

No

Heal 1998 [39]

No

No

No

No

No

No

Kamolratanakul 1999 [40]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Khan 2002 [41]

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

Not clear

No

Lwilla 2003 [42]

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

No

No

Yes

MacIntyre 2003 [43]

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Malotte 2001 [44]

Yes

No

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

No

Newell 2006 [45]

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Ollé-Goig 2001 [46]

No

No

No

No

No

No

Walley 2001 [47]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Wandwalo 2004 [48]

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Wright 2004 [49]

Yes

No

Yes

Not clear

Not clear

No

Table 2

Characteristics of the included studies

Study

Study design

Country

Intervention

Target Population

Integrated/Non-Integrated

Gandhi 2008 [38]

Before/after

South Africa

DOTS therapy integrated with anti-retroviral therapy on a community level

TB and HIV co-infected adults

Integrated

Chaisson 2001 [37]

RCT

USA

Preventive Isoniazid therapy for injection drug users

Injection drug users

Non-integrated

Zwarenstein 1998 [50]

RCT

South Africa

Self-supervised treatment compared against therapy observed in clinic

Adult pulmonary TB patients

Non-integrated

Heal 1998 [39]

Quasi-trial

Canada

Self-administered preventive therapy compared against preventive therapy observed in a clinic

All aboriginals in British Columbia undergoing preventive therapy for TB

Non-integrated

Kamolratanakul 1999 [40]

RCT

Thailand

DOTS therapy compared against self-supervised therapy

All smear positive pulmonary TB patients

Non-integrated

Khan 2002 [41]

RCT

Pakistan

DOTS therapy compared against self-supervised therapy

Adults with TB

Non-integrated

Lwilla 2003 [42]

RCT

Tanzania

Community-based DOTS compared against institution-based DOTS

All patients diagnosed with TB at selected health centres

Non-integrated

MacIntyre 2003 [43]

Quasi-trial

Australia

Family member supervised DOTS compared against non-observed therapy

All patients diagnosed with TB at selected health centres

Non-integrated

Malotte 2001 [44]

RCT

USA

INH therapy of latent TB infections given either by outreach workers or at a facility

People with active or recent history of drug use

Non-integrated

Newell 2006 [45]

RCT

Nepal

Comparison between community-members DOTS and family member DOTS

All new smear positive cases of pulmonary TB

Non-integrated

Ollé-Goig 2001 [46]

Quasi-trial

Haiti

DOTS compared with non-observed therapy

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Walley 2001 [47]

RCT

Pakistan

DOTS by family member compared with DOTS by healthcare worker and non-observed therapy

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Wandwalo 2004 [48]

RCT

Tanzania

Community-based DOTS compared against healthcare worker DOTS

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Wright 2004 [49]

RCT

Swaziland

Community health worker DOTS compared with family member DOTS

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Atkins 2011 [11]

Quasi-trial

South Africa

Enhanced tuberculosis treatment adherence

Adult TB patients

Integrated

Barker 2002 [12]

Quasi-trial

South Africa

Community-based DOTS compared against healthcare worker DOTS

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Clarke 2005 [15]

RCT

South Africa

Comparison between conventional TB treatment and lay health worker DOTS

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Colvin 2003 [16]

Quasi-trial

South Africa

Traditional healers mobilized as DOTS supervisors

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Corbett 2010 [17]

RCT

Zimbabwe

Door-to-door and mobile van announcements compared as strategies to increase TB detection

All people in a specific community

Integrated

Diez 1996 [18]

Before/after

Spain

Social support for deserving TB patients

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Dudley 2003 [19]

Quasi-trial

South Africa

DOTS compared with non-observed therapy

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Fairall 2005 [20]

RCT

South Africa

Educational outreach to nurses to increase TB case detection

Patients attending specific clinics

Integrated

Ferreira 2011 [21]

Quasi-trial

Brazil

DOTS compared with non-observed therapy

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Filho 2009 [14]

Quasi-trial

Brazil

Food baskets offered to patient to assess effect on treatment outcomes

Adult TB patients

Integrated

Kamineni 2011 [22]

Before/after

India

Increasing case detection and treatment adherence, decreasing stigma and discrimination, empowering affected people, and mobilising political commitment and resources

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Kirondea 2002 [23]

Quasi-trial

South Africa

Assessing the feasibility of using lay volunteers as DOTS supervisors

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Vieira 2011 [31]

Quasi-trial

Brazil

DOTS compared with non-observed therapy

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Weis 1994 [32]

Before/after

USA

DOTS compared with non-observed therapy

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

White 2002 [33]

RCT

USA

Incentivized treatment compared with no incentive

Susceptible population in a county jail

Non-integrated

Zwarenstein 2000 [35]

RCT

South Africa

DOTS compared with non-observed therapy

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Prado 2011 [27]

Quasi-trial

Brazil

Community health worker DOTS compared with family member DOTS

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Vassall 2002 [30]

Quasi-trial

Syria and Egypt

Community-based DOTS compared against institution-based DOTS

TB patients of all ages

Integrated

CDI study group

RCT

Nigeria, Uganda and Cameroon

Integration of community interventions to counter multiple diseases through a single framework

TB patients of all ages

Integrated

Miti 2003 [25]

Quasi-trial

Zambia

Integration of HIV and TB services

Adult TB patients

Integrated

Amo-Adjei 2013 [10]

Before/after

Ghana

Improvements in diagnosis, community TB care and stigma reduction among community and health workers towards TB patients

Adult TB patients

Integrated

Brust 2012 [13]

Before/after

South Africa

Integration of HIV and TB services

Adult TB patients

Integrated

Mafigiri 2012 [24]

Quasi-trial

Uganda

Community-based DOTS compared against institution-based DOTS

TB patients of all ages

Non-integrated

Niazi 2003 [26]

Quasi-trial

Iraq

Community-based DOTS compared against institution-based DOTS

Adult TB patients

Non-integrated

Uwimana 2012 [28]

RCT

South Africa

Training community care workers (CCWs) to provide integrated care

All members of localities where the CCWs were based

Integrated

Uwimana 2013 [29]

Before/after

South Africa

Training community care workers (CCWs) to provide integrated care

All members of localities where the CCWs were based

Integrated

Yassin 2013 [34]

Quasi-trial

Ethiopia

Training, engaging stakeholders and communities and active case-finding by female Health Extension Workers (HEWs) at village level

All members of localities where the HEWs were based

Non-integrated

Quantitative synthesis

Overall, CBI for TB prevention and case detection showed significant increase in TB detection rates (RR: 3.1, 95% CI: 2.92, 3.28) (Figure 2) while there was a non-significant impact on TB incidence, although this evidence is from a single study. Subgroup analysis showed consistent results for various study designs and whether the interventions were delivered in an integrated or a non-integrated manner. CBI for treating patients with active TB showed an overall improvement in treatment success rates (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.11) (Figure 3) and evidence from a single study suggests significant reduction in relapse rate (RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.39). The results were consistent for various study design and delivery mechanism. The results are summarized in Table 3.
Figure 2

Forest plot for the impact of CBI on TB case detection.

Figure 3

Forest plot for the impact of CBI on treatment success rate.

Table 3

Results for overall and sub-group analysis according to type of study, intervention and treatment

Outcomes

Estimates (95% CI)

  
 

Prevention/Screening

Therapeutic management

RCT/Quasi

Pre-post studies

Integrated

Non-integrated

CBI for TB case detection

TB detection

3.10 [2.92, 3.28]

-

3.71 [3.44, 4.01]

2.43 [2.22, 2.65]

3.15 [2.97, 3.34]

1.98 [1.47, 2.68]

5 datasets, 5 studies

 

4 datasets, 4 studies

1 dataset, 1 study

4 datasets, 4 studies

1 dataset, 1 study

TB incidence

0.63 [0.36, 1.09]

-

-

0.63 [0.36, 1.09]

-

0.63 [0.36, 1.09]

1 dataset, 1 study

  

1 dataset, 1 study

 

1 dataset, 1 study

CBI for patients with Active TB

Treatment success

-

1.09 [1.07, 1.11]

1.10 [1.08, 1.12]

1.06 [1.02, 1.10]

1.29 [1.21, 1.38]

1.08 [1.06, 1.10]

36 datasets 35 studies

32 datasets, 31 studies

4 datasets, 4 studies

8 datasets, 7 studies

28 datasets, 28 studies

Relapse

-

0.26 [0.18, 0.39]

-

0.26 [0.18, 0.39]

-

0.26 [0.18, 0.39]

  

1 dataset, 1 study

 

1 dataset, 1 study

 

1 dataset, 1 study

Italics denote statistically significant estimates.

Qualitative synthesis

Included studies suggest that CBI for TB have the potential to improve access to diagnostic and treatment services for poor rural communities and vulnerable population including women and children. Community based TB treatment delivery through CHW not only improved access and service utilization but also contributed to capacity building and improving routine TB recording and reporting systems through regular supportive supervision [34]. Better outcomes were reported when DOTS was provided together with CHW program as it enabled treatment continuation; thus achieving higher treatment success rates [21]. Studies also support the feasibility of integrating cadres of CHW through establishing supportive structures and supervision [28, 29]. Besides treatment, community based untargeted periodic active case finding for symptomatic smear-positive TB also made a substantial contribution to diagnosis and control of infectious TB [17]. This is a significant finding as the slow rate at which patients with tuberculosis report to health facilities is a major limitation in global efforts to control TB. However, especial emphasis needs to be given for training, close supervision and support for CHW to achieve job satisfaction and sustainability [34].

Despite considerable advocacy for increased collaboration and integration of TB and HIV care, few models of integration have been implemented, evaluated and reported [11, 17, 20, 28, 29]. However, existing evidence favors integrating TB and HIV care for improving active case finding and early diagnosis of TB, which in turn, reduces the risk of TB transmission [28]. TB/HIV co-infected patients receiving concurrent antiretroviral and TB therapy achieved high levels of adherence and excellent TB and HIV outcomes [28]. Integrated provision of TB, HIV and prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) services at community level through CHW is feasible, acceptable and successful [28, 29]. Training CHW to provide a comprehensive package of TB ⁄HIV⁄PMTCT prevention, case finding and treatment support services can bridge the current gaps in service delivery through vertical TB, HIV and PMTCT programs. Evidence also suggests that DOTS strategy can be successfully implemented at primary health care clinics [31]. However such integrations should follow careful planning and caution with greater investments in developing and implementing infection control and laboratory infrastructure [28].

Key components reported for a successful community delivery strategy to prevent and treat TB included a preexisting TB DOTS infrastructure, patient treatment literacy training, and adherence support from trained CHW and family members [21]. Involvement of non-governmental organization (NGO) has also been reported as an essential component of TB programs [22]. Formation of community groups also have reported to contribute towards improved awareness and knowledge about TB and treatment adherence. Community groups help bridge gaps between health system and community through support and coordination. Multi-sectoral community mobilization events that engage community leaders is also one of the enabling tools for successful community based programs in TB⁄HIV⁄PMTCT care [28, 29]. Engagement of successfully treated patients can also assist in reducing community stigma and discrimination [22]. Other strategies for organizing, coordinating and managing health care include continuous education and direct supervision of health providers; establishment of goals and regular monitoring of process and result indicators; and incentives for effective use of recommended guidelines [21].

One of the major reported barriers in the success of TB programs is non-adherence mainly due to the lack of support. The intensity of support for patients is reported to diminish in the continuation phase of treatment [11]. Lack of incentives, difficult treatment access, poor communication between health providers and patients, poor application of DOTS, lack of active search for missing patients, and limitations of supervision in treatment units are recognized barriers to treatment success [21]. In addition, the presence of multiple cadres of CHW providing TB and HIV services in silos has hindered the enhancement of collaborative TB⁄HIV activities in community, as well as their supervision [28, 29]. Inconsistency in the supply of commodities such as test kits need to be resolved to increase uptake of HIV testing and counseling [28, 29].

Discussion

Our review findings suggest that CBI are effective in TB detection and treatment but its role in preventing TB cases has not been comprehensively evaluated. Community based delivery of DOTS may be more feasible and effective for TB case detection and treatment as community workers are familiar with the layout of community and have community member’s trust which healthcare officials would have to develop. Moreover, a community-based approach helps empower each community to deal with its own problems and also provides patient with a greater degree of autonomy and satisfaction with the treatment regime [51]. This involvement of respected, responsible and resourceful community and family members increases the trust that is required to initiate treatment and provides close supervision thereby maximizing adherence which is crucial in such a lengthy treatment regime. Limited coverage of public health services has continued to impede accelerated access to TB control services due to inadequate health service infrastructure, insufficient decentralization of services and inadequate human, material and financial resources. Hence, community delivery platforms offer improved access and equitable distribution of care.

High incidence of TB and its significant financial burden makes it imperative to find a plausible strategy to cope with this disease. The fact that it effects lower socio-economic groups further compounds the problem. Gender inequality, social stigma, and poverty are also recognized as important barriers for successful TB prevention and control programs [5255]. In light of the above situation, DOTS provides a successful and cost-effective strategy to deal with the burden of TB [27, 30, 41]. CBI coupled with DOTS seems to be an effective approach as they have the potential to maximize the outreach and minimize the cost. Community based TB control also offers many lessons for the control of HIV epidemic. With the emergence of HIV and consequent TB resurgence, a comprehensive and equitable strategy is needed to stem the worsening double burden of these two infections in poor countries [56].

The WHO currently advocates home-based care and integrated management of dually infected TB/AIDS patients [57]. It recommends a 12 point package of collaborative TB/HIV activities based on creating a mechanism of collaboration between TB and HIV programs, reducing the burden of TB among people living with HIV and reducing the burden of HIV among TB patients. CHW delivering DOTS can be further trained to carry out this additional task and studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility, relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of this approach [23, 58]. However, such integration would involve CHW training and time; improved collaboration between community and facility; and strengthening referral services [59, 60].

Conclusion

Well-designed operational research is needed to pragmatically evaluate various models of community based delivery. There is a need to evaluate and address context specific barriers to community based implementation, especially for collaborative TB⁄HIV activities in the community to avoid duplication of labor and resources. Future studies should focus on evaluating novel community delivery models for their success in larger and more diverse populations and impact TB prevention and active case detection.

Abbreviations

CBI: 

Community based interventions

CHW: 

Community health workers

CI: 

Confidence interval

DOTS: 

Direct observed therapy

HIV: 

Human immunodeficiency virus

MDR-TB: 

Multi drug resistant tuberculosis

NGO: 

Non-governmental organization

PMTCT: 

Prevention of mother-to-child transmission

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

RR: 

Relative risk

SMD: 

Standard mean difference

TB: 

Tuberculosis

WHO: 

World Health organization.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The collection of scoping reviews in this special issue of Infectious Diseases of Poverty was commissioned by the UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) in the context of a Contribution Agreement with the European Union for “Promoting research for improved community access to health interventions in Africa”.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Women and Child Health, The Aga Khan University
(2)
Center of Excellence in Women & Child Health, The Aga Khan University
(3)
Center for Global Child Health Hospital for Sick Children

References

  1. World Health Organization: Global Tuberculosis Report. 2013, Availabel at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/91355/1/9789241564656_eng.pdf?ua=1Google Scholar
  2. WHO: Global Tuberculosis Control: Epidemiology, Strategy, Financing: WHO, 2009. 2009, Geneva, Switzerland: WHOGoogle Scholar
  3. Rose AM, Watson JM, Graham C, Nunn AJ, Drobniewski F, Ormerod LP, Darbyshire JH, Leese J: Tuberculosis at the end of the 20th century in England and Wales: results of a national survey in 1998. Thorax. 2001, 56 (3): 173-179.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Schluger NW, Burzynski J: Tuberculosis and HIV infection: epidemiology, immunology, and treatment. HIV Clin Trials. 2001, 2 (4): 356-365.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. WHO: Community contribution to TB care: practice and policy. WHO. 2003, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhutta ZA, Sommerfeld J, Lassi ZS, Salam RA, Das JK: Global burden, distribution and interventions for the infectious diseases of poverty. Infect Dis Pov. 2014, 3: 21View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Wood R: The case for integrating tuberculosis and HIV treatment services in South Africa. J Infect Dis. 2007, 196 (Suppl 3): S497-S499.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lassi ZS, Salam RA, Das JK, Bhutta ZA: Conceptual framework and assessment methodology for the systematic review on community based interventions for the prevention and control of IDoP. Infect Dis Pov. 2014, 3: 22View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Higgins JPT, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from [http://www.cochrane-handbook.org]
  10. Amo-Adjei J, Awusabo-Asare K: Reflections on tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment outcomes in Ghana. Arch Public Health. 2013, 71 (1): 22PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Atkins S, Lewin S, Jordaan E, Thorson A: Lay health worker-supported tuberculosis treatment adherence in South Africa: an interrupted time-series study. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011, 15 (1): 84-89. iPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Barker RD, Millard FJ, Nthangeni ME: Unpaid community volunteers–effective providers of directly observed therapy (DOT) in rural South Africa. S Afr Med J. 2002, 92 (4): 291-294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brust JC, Shah NS, Scott M, Chaiyachati K, Lygizos M, van der Merwe TL, Bamber S, Radebe Z, Loveday M, Moll AP, Margot B, Lalloo UG, Friedland GH, Gandhi NR: Integrated, home-based treatment for MDR-TB and HIV in rural South Africa: an alternate model of care. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012, 16 (8): 998-1004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantalice Filho JP: Food baskets given to tuberculosis patients at a primary health care clinic in the city of Duque de Caxias, Brazil: effect on treatment outcomes. J Bras Pneumol. 2009, 35 (10): 992-997.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke M, Dick J, Zwarenstein M, Lombard CJ, Diwan VK: Lay health worker intervention with choice of DOT superior to standard TB care for farm dwellers in South Africa: a cluster randomised control trial. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2005, 9 (6): 673-679.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Colvin M, Gumede L, Grimwade K, Maher D, Wilkinson D: Contribution of traditional healers to a rural tuberculosis control programme in Hlabisa, South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003, 7 (9 Suppl 1): S86-S91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Corbett EL, Bandason T, Duong T, Dauya E, Makamure B, Churchyard GJ, Williams BG, Munyati SS, Butterworth AE, Mason PR, Mungofa S, Hayes RJ: Comparison of two active case-finding strategies for community-based diagnosis of symptomatic smear-positive tuberculosis and control of infectious tuberculosis in Harare, Zimbabwe (DETECTB): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2010, 376 (9748): 1244-1253.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Diez E, Claveria J, Serra T, Cayla JA, Jansa JM, Pedro R, Villalbi JR: Evaluation of a social health intervention among homeless tuberculosis patients. Tuber Lung Dis. 1996, 77 (5): 420-424.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudley L, Azevedo V, Grant R, Schoeman JH, Dikweni L, Maher D: Evaluation of community contribution to tuberculosis control in Cape Town, South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003, 7 (9 Suppl 1): S48-S55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fairall LR, Zwarenstein M, Bateman ED, Bachmann M, Lombard C, Majara BP, Joubert G, English RG, Bheekie A, van Rensburg D, Mayers P, Peters AC, Chapman RD: Effect of educational outreach to nurses on tuberculosis case detection and primary care of respiratory illness: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005, 331 (7519): 750-754.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferreira V, Brito C, Portela M, Escosteguy C, Lima S: DOTS in primary care units in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Southeastern Brazil Rev Saude Publica. 2011, 45 (1): 40-48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kamineni VV, Turk T, Wilson N, Satyanarayana S, Chauhan LS: A rapid assessment and response approach to review and enhance advocacy, communication and social mobilisation for tuberculosis control in Odisha state. India BMC Public Health. 2011, 11: 463View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kironde S, Kahirimbanyi M: Community participation in primary health care (PHC) programmes: lessons from tuberculosis treatment delivery in South Africa. Afr Health Sci. 2002, 2 (1): 16-23.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mafigiri DK, McGrath JW, Whalen CC: Task shifting for tuberculosis control: a qualitative study of community-based directly observed therapy in urban Uganda. Glob Public Health. 2012, 7 (3): 270-284.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Miti S, Mfungwe V, Reijer P, Maher D: Integration of tuberculosis treatment in a community-based home care programme for persons living with HIV/AIDS in Ndola. Zambia Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003, 7 (9 Suppl 1): S92-S98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Niazi AD, Al-Delaimi AM: Impact of community participation on treatment outcomes and compliance of DOTS patients in Iraq. East Mediterr Health J. 2003, 9 (4): 709-717.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Prado TN, Wada N, Guidoni LM, Golub JE, Dietze R, Maciel EL: Cost-effectiveness of community health worker versus home-based guardians for directly observed treatment of tuberculosis in Vitoria, Espirito Santo State. Brazil Cad Saude Publica. 2011, 27 (5): 944-952.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Uwimana J, Zarowsky C, Hausler H, Jackson D: Training community care workers to provide comprehensive TB/HIV/PMTCT integrated care in KwaZulu-Natal: lessons learnt. Trop Med Int Health. 2012, 17 (4): 488-496.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Uwimana J, Zarowsky C, Hausler H, Swanevelder S, Tabana H, Jackson D: Community-based intervention to enhance provision of integrated TB-HIV and PMTCT services in South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013, 17 (10 Suppl 1): 48-55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Vassall A, Bagdadi S, Bashour H, Zaher H, Maaren PV: Cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies for tuberculosis in Egypt and Syria. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2002, 6 (12): 1083-1090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vieira AA, Ribeiro SA: Compliance with tuberculosis treatment after the implementation of the directly observed treatment, short-course strategy in the city of Carapicuiba. Brazil J Bras Pneumol. 2011, 37 (2): 223-231.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Weis SE, Slocum PC, Blais FX, King B, Nunn M, Matney GB, Gomez E, Foresman BH: The effect of directly observed therapy on the rates of drug resistance and relapse in tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 1994, 330 (17): 1179-1184.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. White MC, Tulsky JP, Goldenson J, Portillo CJ, Kawamura M, Menendez E: Randomized controlled trial of interventions to improve follow-up for latent tuberculosis infection after release from jail. Arch Intern Med. 2002, 162 (9): 1044-1050.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yassin MA, Datiko DG, Tulloch O, Markos P, Aschalew M, Shargie EB, Dangisso MH, Komatsu R, Sahu S, Blok L, Cuevas LE, Theobald S: Innovative community-based approaches doubled tuberculosis case notification and improve treatment outcome in Southern Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2013, 8 (5): e63174PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Zwarenstein M, Schoeman JH, Vundule C, Lombard CJ, Tatley M: A randomised controlled trial of lay health workers as direct observers for treatment of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000, 4 (6): 550-554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Group C: Community-directed interventions for priority health problems in Africa: results of a multicountry study. Bull World Health Organ. 2010, 88 (7): 509-518.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Chaisson RE, Barnes GL, Hackman J, Watkinson L, Kimbrough L, Metha S, Cavalcante S, Moore RD: A randomized, controlled trial of interventions to improve adherence to isoniazid therapy to prevent tuberculosis in injection drug users. Am J Med. 2001, 110 (8): 610-615.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gandhi NR, Moll AP, Lalloo U, Pawinski R, Zeller K, Moodley P, Meyer E, Friedland G: Successful integration of tuberculosis and HIV treatment in rural South Africa: the Sizonq'oba study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009, 50 (1): 37-43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Heal G, Elwood RK, FitzGerald JM: Acceptance and safety of directly observed versus self-administered isoniazid preventive therapy in aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1998, 2 (12): 979-983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kamolratanakul P, Sawert H, Lertmaharit S, Kasetjaroen Y, Akksilp S, Tulaporn C, Punnachest K, Na-Songkhla S, Payanandana V: Randomized controlled trial of directly observed treatment (DOT) for patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Thailand. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999, 93 (5): 552-557.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Khan MA, Walley JD, Witter SN, Imran A, Safdar N: Costs and cost-effectiveness of different DOT strategies for the treatment of tuberculosis in Pakistan. Directly Observed Treatment. Health Policy Plan. 2002, 17 (2): 178-186.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lwilla F, Schellenberg D, Masanja H, Acosta C, Galindo C, Aponte J, Egwaga S, Njako B, Ascaso C, Tanner M, Alonso P: Evaluation of efficacy of community-based vs. institutional-based direct observed short-course treatment for the control of tuberculosis in Kilombero district, Tanzania. Trop Med Int Health. 2003, 8 (3): 204-210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. MacIntyre CR, Goebel K, Brown GV, Skull S, Starr M, Fullinfaw RO: A randomised controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of family-based direct observation of anti-tuberculosis treatment in an urban, developed-country setting. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003, 7 (9): 848-854.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Malotte CK, Hollingshead JR, Larro M: Incentives vs outreach workers for latent tuberculosis treatment in drug users. Am J Prev Med. 2001, 20 (2): 103-107.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Newell JN, Baral SC, Pande SB, Bam DS, Malla P: Family-member DOTS and community DOTS for tuberculosis control in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006, 367 (9514): 903-909.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Olle-Goig JE, Alvarez J: Treatment of tuberculosis in a rural area of Haiti: directly observed and non-observed regimens. The experience of H pital Albert Schweitzer. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2001, 5 (2): 137-141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Walley JD, Khan MA, Newell JN, Khan MH: Effectiveness of the direct observation component of DOTS for tuberculosis: a randomised controlled trial in Pakistan. Lancet. 2001, 357 (9257): 664-669.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wandwalo E, Kapalata N, Egwaga S, Morkve O: Effectiveness of community-based directly observed treatment for tuberculosis in an urban setting in Tanzania: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2004, 8 (10): 1248-1254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright J, Walley J, Philip A, Pushpananthan S, Dlamini E, Newell J, Dlamini S: Direct observation of treatment for tuberculosis: a randomized controlled trial of community health workers versus family members. Trop Med Int Health. 2004, 9 (5): 559-565.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Zwarenstein M, Schoeman JH, Vundule C, Lombard CJ, Tatley M: Randomised controlled trial of self-supervised and directly observed treatment of tuberculosis. Lancet. 1998, 352 (9137): 1340-1343.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. WHO: Community Involvement in Tuberculosis Care and Prevention. Towards Partnerships for Health. 2008, Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596404_eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
  52. Atre SR, Kudale AM, Morankar SN, Rangan SG, Weiss MG: Cultural concepts of tuberculosis and gender among the general population without tuberculosis in rural Maharashtra. India Trop Med Int Health. 2004, 9 (11): 1228-1238.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Long NH, Johansson E, Diwan VK, Winkvist A: Fear and social isolation as consequences of tuberculosis in VietNam: a gender analysis. Health Policy. 2001, 58 (1): 69-81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Weiss MG, Somma D, Karim F, Abouihia A, Auer C, Kemp J, Jawahar MS: Cultural epidemiology of TB with reference to gender in Bangladesh, India and Malawi. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008, 12 (7): 837-847.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Aryal S, Badhu A, Pandey S, Bhandari A, Khatiwoda P, Khatiwada P, Giri A: Stigma related to tuberculosis among patients attending DOTS clinics of Dharan municipality. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2012, 10 (37): 48-52.Google Scholar
  56. Farmer P, Laandre F, Mukherjee J, Gupta R, Tarter L, Kim JY: Community-based treatment of advanced HIV disease: introducing DOT-HAART (directly observed therapy with highly active antiretroviral therapy). Bull World Health Organ. 2001, 79 (12): 1145-1151.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. World Health Organization: WHO Policy on Collaborative TB/HIV Activities: Guidelines for National Programmes and other Stakeholders. 2012, Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  58. Kironde S: Tuberculosis. South African Health Review. Edited by: Ntuli A, Crisp N, Clarke E, Baron P. 2000, Durban: Health Systems Trust, 335-349.Google Scholar
  59. Legido-Quigley H, Montgomery CM, Khan P, Atun R, Fakoya A, Getahun H, Grant AD: Integrating tuberculosis and HIV services in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Trop Med Int Health. 2013, 18 (2): 199-211.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Howard AA, El-Sadr WM: Integration of tuberculosis and HIV services in sub-Saharan Africa: lessons learned. Clin Infect Dis. 2010, 50 (Supplement 3): S238-S244.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Arshad et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.