Characteristics of studies applying different service models and organisational structures to improve TB identification and TB management
First author (year), country | Population | Aims | Intervention | Comparator | Study design | Outcome measure | Quality score |
TB identification (studies identified by this review) | |||||||
Jit22 (2011), UK | Homeless people and drug users. | To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Find and Treat service for diagnosing and managing hard-to-reach individuals with active TB in London. | Period 2007–2010: Find and Treat service:
| Passive case detection and standard treatment at a London TB clinic. | Observational and cost-effectiveness study. | Identified TB cases, treatment completion, lost to follow-up and incremental costs from healthcare taxpayer perspective. | + |
Duarte11 (2011), Portugal | Drug users. | To evaluate the effect of an intervention with key partners (TB clinic, drug users support centres, shelters, street teams, public health department and hospital) delivering promotion of health-seeking behaviour, eliminating potential barriers for TB screening at a chest clinic and DOT on identifying TB cases and treatment compliance. | Improved cooperation of key partners (2005–2007):
| Period before the intervention (2001–2003):
| Before–after study. | Identified TB cases and treatment compliance. | − |
Goetsch20 (2012), Germany | Homeless people and drug users. | To estimate the coverage of a low-threshold CXR screening programme for pulmonary TB among illicit drug users and homeless persons. | CHWs providing TB education and promoting voluntary CXR screening 1–2×/year. | Comparing the beginning of the 5-year intervention period with the end (2002–2007). | Retrospective effectiveness study. | Screening coverage. | − |
Ospina21 (2012), Spain | Migrants. | To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention with CHWs to improve contact tracing among migrants. | CHWs active follow-up of cases and contacts, including visits of the cases at home, accompanying at outpatient appointments, providing counselling and information on treatments (2003–2005). | Preintervention period (2000–2002). | Before–after study. | Number of migrants who were included in contact tracing. | + |
Aldridge19 (2015), UK | Homeless people. | To compare TB screening uptake between current practice of encouraging homeless people by shelter staff and encouragement by shelter staff plus volunteer peer educators. | Encouragement of TB screening by peers in addition to shelter staff. | Encouragement of TB screening by shelter staff only. | Cluster RCT. | Screening uptake. | + |
TB identification (studies identified by the previous NICE review15) | |||||||
El-Hamad24 (2001), Italy | Migrants | To compare the completion rates of screening procedures for TB infection among undocumented migrants at specialised TB units and non-specialised health clinics. | TB screening at specialised TB clinic. | TB screening at a general health service for migrants. | Prospective cohort. | Screening completion. | + |
Bothamley25 (2002), UK | Migrants and homeless people. | To compare the yield and costs of TB screening in three settings: a new entrants’ clinic within the POA scheme; a large general practice; and centres for the homeless. | TB screening at a GP. | TB screening at POA and at homeless centres. | Cost analysis. | Cost per person screened per case of TB prevented. | − |
Deruaz28 (2004), Switzerland | Migrants, alcohol or drug users, homeless people and prisoners. | Evaluation of first experience of the DOT programme for TB introduced in the Canton of Vaud in 1997. |
|
| Before–after study. | Adherence to treatment and outcome. | − |
Miller26 (2006), USA | Homeless people and prisoners. | To evaluate and compare the efficiency of a non-state-law-mandated TB screening programme for homeless persons with a state-law-mandated TB screening programme for prisoners. | Non-state-law-mandated TB screening programme for homeless persons. | State-law-mandated TB screening programme for prisoners. | Retrospective comparison of the cost and health impacts. | TB cases averted and cost. | + |
Ricks23 (2008), USA | Drug users. | To compare the effectiveness of using peers versus ‘standard’ public health workers to coordinate TB treatment. | Enhanced case management by peers. | Limited case management by healthcare professionals. | RCT. | Adherence to treatment. | ++ |
Mor27 (2008), Israel | Migrants. | To examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of premigration screening and postmigration screening at POA. | Premigration screening. | Postmigration screening. | Retrospective cohort analysis. | Active TB cases, time between migration and diagnosis, and cost-savings. | − |
Study quality: high quality [++], medium quality [+] or low quality [−].
CHWs, community health workers; CXR, chest X-ray; DOT, direct observed treatment; GP, general practice; MXU, mobile X-ray unit; n, number of participants; POA, port of arrival; RCT, randomised controlled trial; TB, tuberculosis.