Educational outreach to promote screening for tuberculosis in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Improving cascade outcomes for active TB: A global systematic review and meta-analysis of TB interventions

BACKGROUND

To inform policy and implementation that can enhance prevention and improve tuberculosis (TB) care cascade outcomes, this review aimed to summarize the impact of various interventions on care cascade outcomes for active TB.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we retrieved English articles with comparator arms (like randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before and after intervention studies) that evaluated TB interventions published from January 1970 to September 30, 2022, from Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane library. Commentaries, qualitative studies, conference abstracts, studies without standard of care comparator arms, and studies that did not report quantitative results for TB care cascade outcomes were excluded. Data from studies with similar comparator arms were pooled in a random effects model, and outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and number of studies (k). The quality of evidence was appraised using GRADE, and the study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018103331). Of 21,548 deduplicated studies, 144 eligible studies were included. Of 144 studies, 128 were from low/middle-income countries, 84 were RCTs, and 25 integrated TB and HIV care. Counselling and education was significantly associated with testing (OR = 8.82, 95% CI:1.71 to 45.43; I2 = 99.9%, k = 7), diagnosis (OR = 1.44, 95% CI:1.08 to 1.92; I2 = 97.6%, k = 9), linkage to care (OR = 3.10, 95% CI = 1.97 to 4.86; I2 = 0%, k = 1), cure (OR = 2.08, 95% CI:1.11 to 3.88; I2 = 76.7%, k = 4), treatment completion (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.03; I2 = 73.1%, k = 8), and treatment success (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: 1.88 to 5.55; I2 = 75.9%, k = 5) outcomes compared to standard-of-care. Incentives, multisector collaborations, and community-based interventions were associated with at least three TB care cascade outcomes; digital interventions and mixed interventions were associated with an increased likelihood of two cascade outcomes each. These findings remained salient when studies were limited to RCTs only. Also, our study does not cover the entire care cascade as we did not measure gaps in pre-testing, pretreatment, and post-treatment outcomes (like loss to follow-up and TB recurrence).

CONCLUSIONS

Among TB interventions, education and counseling, incentives, community-based interventions, and mixed interventions were associated with multiple active TB care cascade outcomes. However, cost-effectiveness and local-setting contexts should be considered when choosing such strategies due to their high heterogeneity.

Improving screening and treatment for infectious diseases in migrant populations

Many migrants living in high-income countries have increased morbidity and mortality due to undetected and untreated infections. Improving and strengthening the care continuum (screening and linkage to care and treatment) and building migrant-friendly health systems that improve access to care will be required to address this health disparity.

A feasibility study evaluating the uptake, effectiveness and acceptability of routine screening of pregnant migrants for latent tuberculosis infection in antenatal care: a research protocol

INTRODUCTION

Globally, tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of death in women of reproductive age and there is high risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in pregnancy. The uptake of routine screening of migrants for LTBI in the UK in primary care is low. Antenatal care is a novel setting which could improve uptake and can lend insight into the feasibility and acceptability of offering opt-out screening for LTBI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an observational feasibility study with a nested qualitative component. The setting will be the antenatal clinics in three hospitals in East London, UK . Inclusion criteria are pregnant migrant women aged 16-35 years attending antenatal clinics who are from countries with a TB incidence of greater than 150/100 000 including sub-Saharan Africa, and who have been in the UK for less than 5 years. Participants will be offered LTBI screening with an opt-out interferon gamma release assay blood test, and be invited to complete a questionnaire. Both participants and healthcare providers will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews or focus groups to evaluate understanding, feasibility and acceptability of routine opt-out LTBI screening. The primary analysis will focus on estimating the uptake of the screening programme along with the corresponding 95% CI. Secondary analysis will focus on estimating the test positivity. Qualitative analysis will evaluate the acceptability of offering routine opt-out LTBI screening to participants and healthcare providers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received the following approvals: Health Research Authority (IRAS 247388) and National Health Service Ethics Committee (19/LO/0557). The results will be made available locally to antenatal clinics and primary care physicians, nationally to NHS England and Public Health England and internationally through conferences and journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04098341.

Improving screening and management of latent tuberculosis infection: development and evaluation of latent tuberculosis infection primary care model

Background

In Australia, demand for specialist infectious diseases services exceeds capacity to provide timely management of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in areas of high refugee and asylum seeker settlement. A model for treating LTBI patients in primary care has been developed and piloted in a refugee-focused primary health service (Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing [MHRHW]) and a universal primary care clinic. This study reports on the development and evaluation of the model, focusing on the model feasibility, and barriers and enablers to its success.

Methods

A convergent mix-methods design was used to evaluate the model for treating LTBI patients in primary care, where a prospective cohort study of patients commencing treatment either at MHRHW or the universal primary care clinic determined the model feasibility, while focus groups with clinicians directly involved in treating these patients explored barriers and enablers to sustainability and success of the model.

Results

From January 2017 to April 2018, 65 patients with confirmed LTBI presented at participating clinics. Treatment was accepted by 31 (48%) patients, of whom 15(48%) were treated at MHRHW and 16 (52%) at the universal primary care clinic. The 6-months’ treatment completion rate was higher at MHRHW compared to the universal primary care clinic (14 (93%) compared to 9 (56%) respectively, p = 0.0373). Reasons for non-completion included adverse reaction, opting out and relocation. At the completion of the pilot, 15 clinicians participated in two focus groups. Clinicians identified barriers and enablers for successful LTBI management at patient, provider, organisational and clinical levels. While barriers for treatment completion and adherence were consistent across the two pilot sites, enablers, such as resources to facilitate patient education and follow-up, were available only at MHRHW.

Conclusion

Screening and management of LTBI patients can be achieved within the primary care setting, considerate of barriers and enablers at patient, provider, organisational and clinical levels. Upscaling of a primary care response to the management of LTBI will require supporting primary care clinics with resources to employ dedicated clinical staff for patient education, follow-up communication and monitoring medication adherence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-021-06925-8.

Perspectives of Vietnamese, Sudanese and South Sudanese immigrants on targeting migrant communities for latent tuberculosis screening and treatment in low-incidence settings: A report on two Victorian community panels

Background

Tuberculosis (TB) elimination strategies in Australia require a focus on groups who are at highest risk of TB infection, such as immigrants from high‐burden settings. Understanding attitudes to different strategies for latent TB infection (LTBI) screening and treatment is an important element of justifiable elimination strategies.

Method

Two community panels were conducted in Melbourne with members of the Vietnamese (n = 11), Sudanese and South Sudanese communities (n = 9). Panellists were provided with expert information about LTBI and different screening and health communication strategies, then deliberated on how best to pursue TB elimination in Australia.

Findings

Both panels unanimously preferred LTBI screening to occur pre‐migration rather than in Australia. Participants were concerned that post‐migration screening would reach fewer migrants, noted that conducting LTBI screening in Australia could stigmatize participants and that poor awareness of LTBI would hamper participation. If targeted screening was to occur in Australia, the Vietnamese panel preferred ‘place‐based’ communication strategies, whereas the Sudanese and South Sudanese panel emphasized that community leaders should lead communication strategies to minimize stigma. Both groups emphasized the importance of maintaining community trust in Australian health service providers, and the need to ensure targeting did not undermine this trust.

Conclusion

Pre‐migration screening was preferred. If post‐migration screening is necessary, the potential for stigma should be reduced, benefit and risk profile clearly explained and culturally appropriate communication strategies employed. Cultural attitudes to health providers, personal health management and broader social vulnerabilities of targeted groups need to be considered in the design of screening programs.

Evaluating the impact of post-trial implementation of RHIVA nurse-led HIV screening on HIV testing, diagnosis and earlier diagnosis in general practice in London, UK

BACKGROUND

UK and European guidelines recommend HIV testing in general practice. We report on the implementation of the Rapid HIV Assessment trial (RHIVA2) promoting HIV screening in general practice into routine care.

METHODS

Interrupted time-series, difference-in-difference analysis and Pearson-correlation on three cohorts comprising 42 general practices in City & Hackney (London, UK); covering three periods: pre-trial (2009-2010), trial (2010-2012) and implementation (2012-2014). Cohorts comprised practices receiving: "trial intervention" only (n = 19), "implementation intervention" only (n = 13); and neither ("comparator") (n = 10). Primary outcomes were HIV testing and diagnosis rates per 1000 people and CD4 at diagnosis.

FINDINGS

Overall, 55,443 people were tested (including 38,326 among these cohorts), and 101 people were newly diagnosed HIV positive (including 65 among these cohorts) including 74 (73%) heterosexuals and 69 (68%) people of black African/Caribbean background; with mean CD4 count at diagnosis 357 (SD=237). Among implementation intervention practices, testing rate increased by 85% (from 1·798 (95%CI=(1·657,1·938) at baseline to 3·081 (95%CI=(2·865,3·306); p = 0·0000), diagnosis rate increased by 34% (from 0·0026 (95%CI=(0·0004,0·0037)) to 0·0035 (95%CI=(0·0007,0·0062); p = 0·736), and mean CD4 count at diagnosis increased by 55% (from 273 (SD=372) to 425 (SD=274) cells per μL; p = 0·433). Implementation intervention and trial intervention practices achieved similar testing rates (3·764 vs. 3·081; 6% difference; 95% CI=(-5%,18%); p = 0·358), diagnosis rates (0·0035 vs. 0·0081; -13% difference; 95%CI=(-77%,244%; p = 0·837), and mean CD4 count (425 (SD=274) vs. 351 (SD=257); 69% increase; 95% CI=(-61%,249%); p = 0·359). HIV testing was positively correlated with diagnosis (r = 0·114 (95% CI=[0·074,0·163])), and diagnosis with CD4 count at diagnosis (r = 0·011 (95% CI=[-0·177,0·218])).

INTERPRETATION

Implementation of the RHIVA programme promoting nurse-led HIV screening into routine practice in inner-city practices with high HIV prevalence increased HIV testing, and may be associated with increased and earlier diagnosis. HIV screening in primary care should be considered a key strategy to reduce undiagnosed infection particularly among high risk persons not attending sexual health services.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames, and Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry.

Protocol for a cluster randomised control trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of treatment for latent tuberculosis infection in recent migrants within primary care: the CATAPuLT trial

Background

The identification and treatment of LTBI is a key component of the WHO’s strategy to eliminate TB. Recent migrants from high TB-incidence countries are recognised to be at risk TB reactivation, and many high-income countries have focused on LTBI screening and treatment programmes for this group. However, migrants are the group least likely to complete the LTBI cascade-of-care. This pragmatic cluster-randomised, parallel group, superiority trial investigates whether a model of care based entirely within a community setting (primary care) will improve treatment completion compared with treatment in specialist TB services (secondary care).

Methods

The CATAPuLT trial (Completion and Acceptability of Treatment Across Primary Care and the community for Latent Tuberculosis) randomised 34 general practices in London, England, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment for LBTI in recent migrants within primary care. GP practices were randomised to either provide management for LTBI entirely within primary care (GPs and community pharmacists) or to refer patients to secondary care. The target recruitment number for individuals is 576. The primary outcome is treatment completion (defined as taking at least 90% of antibiotic doses). The secondary outcomes assess adherence, acceptance of treatment, the incidence of adverse effects including drug-induced liver injury, the rates of active TB, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of LTBI treatment. This protocol adheres to the SPIRIT Checklist.

Discussion

The CATAPuLT trial seeks to provide implementation research evidence for a patient-centred intervention to improve treatment completion for LTBI amongst recent migrants to the UK.

Trial registration

NCT03069807, March 2017, registered retrospectively.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for latent tuberculosis among migrants in the EU/EEA: a systematic review

Migrants account for a large and growing proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases in low-incidence countries in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) which are primarily due to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI). Addressing LTBI among migrants will be critical to achieve TB elimination. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine effectiveness (performance of diagnostic tests, efficacy of treatment, uptake and completion of screening and treatment) and a second systematic review on cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening programmes for migrants living in the EU/EEA. Results: We identified seven systematic reviews and 16 individual studies that addressed our aims. Tuberculin skin tests and interferon gamma release assays had high sensitivity (79%) but when positive, both tests poorly predicted the development of active TB (incidence rate ratio: 2.07 and 2.40, respectively). Different LTBI treatment regimens had low to moderate efficacy but were equivalent in preventing active TB. Rifampicin-based regimens may be preferred because of lower hepatotoxicity (risk ratio = 0.15) and higher completion rates (82% vs 69%) compared with isoniazid. Only 14.3% of migrants eligible for screening completed treatment because of losses along all steps of the LTBI care cascade. Limited economic analyses suggest that the most cost-effective approach may be targeting young migrants from high TB incidence countries. Discussion: The effectiveness of LTBI programmes is limited by the large pool of migrants with LTBI, poorly predictive tests, long treatments and a weak care cascade. Targeted LTBI programmes that ensure high screening uptake and treatment completion will have greatest individual and public health benefit.

Using a quality improvement approach to improve care for latent tuberculosis infection

INTRODUCTION

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) management is recognized as a key component of the World Health Organization End Tuberculosis Strategy. The term 'cascade of care in LTBI' has recently been used to refer to the process of LTBI management from identification of persons who may have LTBI to completion of treatment. Large gaps throughout the LTBI cascade of care have been identified. Areas covered: We have reviewed quality improvement (QI) as a potential approach for systematically improving gaps within the LTBI cascade of care. QI principles and approaches were reviewed, as well as the determinants of losses and evidence for solutions (interventions) within the LTBI cascade of care. An example of QI application in LTBI management is described. Expert commentary: Improving LTBI care at the magnitude required to reach the End TB Strategy goals will require systematic and context specific improvements at all steps in the cascade of care in LTBI. A continuous QI approach based on systems thinking, use of locally gathered data, and an iterative learning process can facilitate the process required to make the necessary improvements.

A cross-sectional survey of the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding tuberculosis among general practitioners working in municipalities with and without asylum centres in eastern Norway

BACKGROUND

The number of tuberculosis (TB) cases in Norway is increasing due to immigration from countries with high TB prevalence and few studies have been conducted on general practitioners' (GPs) knowledge of TB in low incidence countries. The main purpose of this study was to explore knowledge, attitudes and practices of TB among Norwegian GPs using a modified Knowledge Attitude Practice (KAP) survey template.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 30 questions was distributed by email using SurveyMonkey to GPs working in municipalities either with or without an asylum reception centre in Eastern Norway (GPwAS or GPw/oAS). The questionnaire assessed demographic data and had 14 questions on TB knowledge and 7 questions on attitudes and practices. Descriptive and inferential analysis of the data was carried out using SPSS 18.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety five GPs responded and 42% worked in a municipality with an asylum reception centre. There was no significant difference between the two GP groups in relation to demographic variables (all p-values > 0.2). GPwAS were more experienced in diagnosing TB patients compared to GPw/oAS (63.4% vs 44.2%, p = 0.008). There was no significant differences in participation in TB training between the two groups (8.5% vs 7.6%, p = 0.71). The majority of GPs (69%) did not consider TB as a major public health threat and misconceptions of TB epidemiology were identified. Overall, 97 (49.7%) GPs had good TB knowledge level and good TB knowledge level was associated with experience in diagnosing TB patients (p = 0.001) and recent TB training (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Gaps in TB knowledge and awareness among GPs in Norway need to be addressed if GPs are to be more involved in TB management and prevention in the future. TB training had an effect on the GPs knowledge level and GPwAS had more experience with TB patients but our survey revealed no major differences in KAP between GPwAS and GPw/oAS.

Improving Screening for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in a Student-run Free Clinic

Introduction

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening with targeted treatment has been successful in eradicating tuberculosis (TB) as an endemic infection in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends screening for high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to increase LTBI screening, detection, and treatment in our student-run free clinic while providing an innovative platform for education in primary care topics.

Methods

A questionnaire for screening for LTBI was adapted from CDC guidelines. Medical students and providers received education on the screening process and administered questionnaires to patients. We analyzed the rate of performed LTBI screening, the rate of diagnostic testing for patients with positive screening, and the feasibility of implementing a preventive screening initiative.

Results

Fifty-two patients completed primary care visits. Forty patients were screened for LTBI. Of those screened, 42.5% were positive for the screening. Of those with positive screening, 70.6% were followed up via diagnostic testing, with the rest of them being lost for follow-up due to not attending the clinic for care.

Conclusions

This educational intervention combined with a screening tool was effective in increasing LTBI screening rates amongst patients in a student-run free clinic.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing HIV testing in primary care in East London: protocol for an interrupted time series analysis

INTRODUCTION

HIV remains underdiagnosed. Guidelines recommend routine HIV testing in primary care, but evidence on implementing testing is lacking. In a previous study, the Rapid HIV Assessment 2 (RHIVA2) cluster randomised controlled trial, we showed that providing training and rapid point-of-care HIV testing at general practice registration (RHIVA2 intervention) in Hackney led to cost-effective, increased and earlier diagnosis of HIV. However, interventions effective in a trial context may be less so when implemented in routine practice. We describe the protocol for an MRC phase IV implementation programme, evaluating the impact of rolling out the RHIVA2 intervention in a post-trial setting. We will use a longitudinal study to examine if the post-trial implementation in Hackney practices is effective and cost-effective, and a cross-sectional study to compare Hackney with two adjacent boroughs providing usual primary care (Newham) and an enhanced service promoting HIV testing in primary care (Tower Hamlets).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Service evaluation using interrupted time series and cost-effectiveness analyses. We will include all general practices in three contiguous high HIV prevalence East London boroughs. All adults aged 16 and above registered with the practices will be included. The interventions to be examined are: a post-trial RHIVA2 implementation programme (including practice-based education and training, external quality assurance, incentive payments for rapid HIV testing and incorporation of rapid HIV testing in the sexual health Local Enhanced Service) in Hackney; the general practice sexual health Network Improved Service in Tower Hamlets and usual care in Newham. Coprimary outcomes are rates of HIV testing and new HIV diagnoses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The chair of the Camden and Islington NHS Research Ethics Committee, London, has endorsed this programme as an evaluation of routine care. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reported to commissioners.

Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community-level services

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary tuberculosis is usually diagnosed when symptomatic individuals seek care at healthcare facilities, and healthcare workers have a minimal role in promoting the health-seeking behaviour. However, some policy specialists believe the healthcare system could be more active in tuberculosis diagnosis to increase tuberculosis case detection.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies to increase tuberculosis case detection through improving access (geographical, financial, educational) to tuberculosis diagnosis at primary healthcare or community-level services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases for relevant studies up to 19 December 2016: the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2016; MEDLINE; Embase; Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index; BIOSIS Previews; and Scopus. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized controlled studies comparing any intervention that aims to improve access to a tuberculosis diagnosis, with no intervention or an alternative intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We compared interventions using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine cluster-randomized trials, one individual randomized trial, and seven non-randomized controlled studies. Nine studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), six in Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Nepal, and Pakistan), and two in South America (Brazil and Colombia); which are all high tuberculosis prevalence areas.Tuberculosis outreach screening, using house-to-house visits, sometimes combined with printed information about going to clinic, may increase tuberculosis case detection (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.79; 4 trials, 6,458,591 participants in 297 clusters, low-certainty evidence); and probably increases case detection in areas with tuberculosis prevalence of 5% or more (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.09; 3 trials, 155,918 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; prespecified stratified analysis). These interventions may lower the early default (prior to starting treatment) or default during treatment (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; 3 trials, 849 participants, low-certainty evidence). However, this intervention may have may have little or no effect on treatment success (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15; 3 trials, 849 participants, low-certainty evidence), and we do not know if there is an effect on treatment failure or mortality. One study investigated long-term prevalence in the community, but with no clear effect due to imprecision and differences in care between the two groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00; 1 trial, 556,836 participants, very low-certainty evidence).Four studies examined health promotion activities to encourage people to attend for screening, including mass media strategies and more locally organized activities. There was some increase, but this could have been related to temporal trends, with no corresponding increase in case notifications, and no evidence of an effect on long-term tuberculosis prevalence. Two studies examined the effects of two to six nurse practitioner educational sessions in tuberculosis diagnosis, with no clear effect on tuberculosis cases detected. One trial compared mobile clinics every five days with house-to-house screening every six months, and showed an increase in tuberculosis cases.There was also insufficient evidence to determine if sustained improvements in case detection impact on long-term tuberculosis prevalence; this was evaluated in one study, which indicated little or no effect after four years of either contact tracing, extensive health promotion activities, or both (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.30; 1 study, 405,788 participants in 12 clusters, very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence demonstrates that when used in appropriate settings, active case-finding approaches may result in increase in tuberculosis case detection in the short term. The effect of active case finding on treatment outcome needs to be further evaluated in sufficiently powered studies.

Use of theory to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines support health care decision-making and high quality care and outcomes. However, their implementation is sub-optimal. Theory-informed, tailored implementation is associated with guideline use. Few guideline implementation studies published up to 1998 employed theory. This study aimed to describe if and how theory is now used to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2006 to April 2016. English language studies that planned or evaluated guideline implementation targeted to physicians based on explicitly named theory were eligible. Screening and data extraction were done in duplicate. Study characteristics and details about theory use were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1244 published reports were identified, 891 were unique, and 716 were excluded based on title and abstract. Among 175 full-text articles, 89 planned or evaluated guideline implementation targeted to physicians; 42 (47.2%) were based on theory and included. The number of studies using theory increased yearly and represented a wide array of countries, guideline topics and types of physicians. The Theory of Planned Behavior (38.1%) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (23.8%) were used most frequently. Many studies rationalized choice of theory (83.3%), most often by stating that the theory described implementation or its determinants, but most failed to explicitly link barriers with theoretical constructs. The majority of studies used theory to inform surveys or interviews that identified barriers of guideline use as a preliminary step in implementation planning (76.2%). All studies that evaluated interventions reported positive impact on reported physician or patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While the use of theory to design or evaluate interventions appears to be increasing over time, this review found that one half of guideline implementation studies were based on theory and many of those provided scant details about how theory was used. This limits interpretation and replication of those interventions, and seems to result in multifaceted interventions, which may not be feasible outside of scientific investigation. Further research is needed to better understand how to employ theory in guideline implementation planning or evaluation.

Sustained reduction in tuberculosis incidence following a community-based participatory intervention

BACKGROUND

Rates of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and tuberculosis (TB) disease are elevated in the rural southeastern United States and among US- and foreign-born Black residents. To prevent TB and reduce TB transmission, community-based strategies are essential.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a community-based participatory intervention for improving the detection and treatment of LTBI and TB and reducing TB incidence.

DESIGN

In rural Florida, we carried out a community educational TB campaign from 1997 to 2000, including presentations at community events, a media campaign and working with local community groups to develop culturally appropriate prevention messages. The campaign was implemented concurrently with a population-based LTBI survey.

RESULTS

The annual TB incidence rate in the intervention area decreased from 81 per 100 000 in 1994-1997, to 42/ 100 000 in 1998-2001, and to 25/100 000 in 2002-2005 (P = 0.001). This decrease was not observed in communities where the intervention was not implemented. There was no decrease in the TB incidence rate ratio between Blacks and non-Blacks in either region during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that community participation in LTBI screening and TB education was associated with a substantial reduction in TB rates. Although the TB incidence rate ratio did not decrease between Blacks and non-Blacks, TB incidence fell in all racial groups.

A multi-perspective service evaluation exploring tuberculosis contact screening attendance among adults at a North London hospital

BACKGROUND

Non-attendance at TB contact screening clinics has been highlighted as a common phenomenon across a number of sites during recruitment to the PREDICT TB Study. This has obvious implications for the safety of patients, their communities and for NHS resources. The objective of this study was to explore why adults who have been in contact with TB do, and do not, attend their screening appointment, thereby allowing identification of interventions to reduce non-attendance.

METHODS

A multi-method approach was taken using 15 questionnaires with adults who attended for screening, 15 telephone questionnaires with adults who did not attend and in-depth interviews with 8 TB nurses. Interviews were coded to trace emerging descriptive themes, then refined through an iterative process of interpretation and recoding.

RESULTS

Findings from the questionnaires and interviews were categorized into three principle themes following analysis: awareness, hospital factors and leadership. These themes deconstruct the complex phenomena of patients' lack of attendance at this TB contact screening service.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations related to issues of leadership, outreach services, flexibility of clinic timing and awareness amongst both the local community and GPs were made.

Treating latent TB in primary care: a survey of enablers and barriers among UK General Practitioners

Background

Treating latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is an important public health intervention. In the UK, LTBI treatment is delivered in secondary care. Treating LTBI in the community would move care closer to home and could increase uptake and treatment completion rates. However, healthcare providers’ views about the feasibility of this in the UK are unknown. This is the first study to investigate perceived barriers and enablers to primary care-based LTBI treatment among UK general practitioners (GPs).

Methods

A national survey amongst 140 randomly sampled UK GPs practising in areas of high TB incidence was performed. GPs’ experience and perceived confidence, barriers and enablers of primary care-based LTBI treatment were explored and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether these were associated with a GP’s willingness to deliver LTBI treatment.

Results

One hundred and twelve (80 %) GPs responded. Ninety-three (83 %; 95 % CI 75 %–89 %) GPs said they would be willing to deliver LTBI treatment in primary care, if key perceived barriers were addressed during service development. The major perceived barriers to delivering primary care-based LTBI treatment were insufficient experience among GPs of screening and treating LTBI, lack of timely specialist support and lack of allied healthcare staff. In addition, GPs felt that appropriate resourcing was key to the successful and sustainable delivery of the service. GPs who reported previous experience of screening or treatment of patients with active or latent TB were almost ten times more likely to be willing to deliver LTBI treatment in primary care compared to GPs with no experience (OR: 9.98; 95 % CI 1.22–81.51).

Conclusions

UK GPs support primary care-based LTBI treatment, provided they are given appropriate training, specialist support, staffing and financing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1091-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background

This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities.

Aims

The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice.

Methods

We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff.

Findings

Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely.

Future Research

Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice

BACKGROUND

Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.

Promotion of rapid testing for HIV in primary care (RHIVA2): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many people with HIV are undiagnosed. Early diagnosis saves lives and reduces onward transmission. We assessed whether an education programme promoting rapid HIV testing in general practice would lead to increased and earlier HIV diagnosis.

METHODS

In this cluster randomised controlled trial in Hackney (London, UK), general practices were randomly assigned (1:1) to offer either opt-out rapid HIV testing to newly registering adults or continue usual care. All practices were invited to take part. Practices were randomised by an independent clinical trials unit statistician with a minimisation program, maintaining allocation concealment. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was CD4 count at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were rate of diagnosis, proportion with CD4 count less than 350 cells per μL, and proportion with CD4 count less than 200 cells per μL. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number ISRCTN63473710.

FINDINGS

40 of 45 (89%) general practices agreed to participate: 20 were assigned to the intervention group (44 971 newly registered adult patients) and 20 to the control group (38 464 newly registered adult patients), between April 19, 2010, and Aug 31, 2012. Intervention practices diagnosed 32 people with HIV versus 14 in control practices. Mean CD4 count at diagnosis was 356 cells per μL (SD 254) intervention practices versus 270 (SD 257) in control practices (adjusted difference of square root CD4 count 3·1, 95% CI -1·2 to 7·4; p=0·16);); in a pre-planned sensitivity analysis excluding patients diagnosed via antenatal care, the difference was 6·4 (95% CI, 1·2 to 11·6; p=0·017). Rate of HIV diagnosis was 0·30 (95% CI 0·11 to 0·85) per 10 000 patients per year in intervention practices versus 0·07 (0·02 to 0·20) in control practices (adjusted ratio of geometric means 4·51, 95% CI 1·27 to 16·05; p=0·021). 55% of patients in intervention practices versus 73% in control practices had CD4 count less than 350 cells per μL (risk ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·53 to 1·07). 28% versus 46% had CD4 count less than 200 cells per μL (0·60, 0·32 to 1·13). All patients diagnosed by rapid testing were successfully transferred into specialist care. No adverse events occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Promotion of opt-out rapid testing in general practice led to increased rate of diagnosis, and might increase early detection, of HIV. We therefore recommend implementation of HIV screening in general practices in areas with high HIV prevalence.

FUNDING

UK Department of Health, NHS City and Hackney.

Screening for latent TB, HIV, and hepatitis B/C in new migrants in a high prevalence area of London, UK: a cross-sectional study

Background

Rising rates of infectious diseases in international migrants has reignited the debate around screening. There have been calls to strengthen primary-care-based programmes, focusing on latent TB. We did a cross-sectional study of new migrants to test an innovative one-stop blood test approach to detect multiple infections at one appointment (HIV, latent tuberculosis, and hepatitis B/C) on registration with a General Practitioner (GP) in primary care.

Methods

The study was done across two GP practices attached to hospital Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E) in a high migrant area of London for 6 months. Inclusion criteria were foreign-born individuals from a high TB prevalence country (>40 cases per 100,000) who have lived in the UK ≤ 10 years, and were over 18 years of age. All new migrants who attended a New Patient Health Check were screened for eligibility and offered the blood test. We followed routine care pathways for follow-up.

Results

There were 1235 new registrations in 6 months. 453 attended their New Patient Health Check, of which 47 (10.4%) were identified as new migrants (age 32.11 years [range 18–72]; 22 different nationalities; time in UK 2.28 years [0–10]). 36 (76.6%) participated in the study. The intervention only increased the prevalence of diagnosed latent TB (18.18% [95% CI 6.98-35.46]; 181.8 cases per 1000). Ultimately 0 (0%) of 6 patients with latent TB went on to complete treatment (3 did not attend referral). No cases of HIV or hepatitis B/C were found. Foreign-born patients were under-represented at these practices in relation to 2011 Census data (Chi-square test −0.111 [95% CI −0.125 to −0.097]; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The one-stop approach was feasible in this context and acceptability was high. However, the number of presenting migrants was surprisingly low, reflecting the barriers to care that this group face on arrival, and none ultimately received treatment. The ongoing UK debate around immigration checks and charging in primary care for new migrants can only have negative implications for the promotion of screening in this group. Until GP registration is more actively promoted in new migrants, a better place to test this one-stop approach could be in A&E departments where migrants may present in larger numbers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0657-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Engaging new migrants in infectious disease screening: a qualitative semi-structured interview study of UK migrant community health-care leads

Migration to Europe - and in particular the UK - has risen dramatically in the past decades, with implications for public health services. Migrants have increased vulnerability to infectious diseases (70% of TB cases and 60% HIV cases are in migrants) and face multiple barriers to healthcare. There is currently considerable debate as to the optimum approach to infectious disease screening in this often hard-to-reach group, and an urgent need for innovative approaches. Little research has focused on the specific experience of new migrants, nor sought their views on ways forward. We undertook a qualitative semi-structured interview study of migrant community health-care leads representing dominant new migrant groups in London, UK, to explore their views around barriers to screening, acceptability of screening, and innovative approaches to screening for four key diseases (HIV, TB, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C). Participants unanimously agreed that current screening models are not perceived to be widely accessible to new migrant communities. Dominant barriers that discourage uptake of screening include disease-related stigma present in their own communities and services being perceived as non-migrant friendly. New migrants are likely to be disproportionately affected by these barriers, with implications for health status. Screening is certainly acceptable to new migrants, however, services need to be developed to become more community-based, proactive, and to work more closely with community organisations; findings that mirror the views of migrants and health-care providers in Europe and internationally. Awareness raising about the benefits of screening within new migrant communities is critical. One innovative approach proposed by participants is a community-based package of health screening combining all key diseases into one general health check-up, to lessen the associated stigma. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based community-focused screening models - drawing on models of best practice from other countries receiving high numbers of migrants.

Tuberculosis control in big cities and urban risk groups in the European Union: a consensus statement

In low-incidence countries in the European Union (EU), tuberculosis (TB) is concentrated in big cities, especially among certain urban high-risk groups including immigrants from TB high-incidence countries, homeless people, and those with a history of drug and alcohol misuse. Elimination of TB in European big cities requires control measures focused on multiple layers of the urban population. The particular complexities of major EU metropolises, for example high population density and social structure, create specific opportunities for transmission, but also enable targeted TB control interventions, not efficient in the general population, to be effective or cost effective. Lessons can be learnt from across the EU and this consensus statement on TB control in big cities and urban risk groups was prepared by a working group representing various EU big cities, brought together on the initiative of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The consensus statement describes general and specific social, educational, operational, organisational, legal and monitoring TB control interventions in EU big cities, as well as providing recommendations for big city TB control, based upon a conceptual TB transmission and control model.

An exploration of NHS staff views on tuberculosis service delivery in Scottish NHS boards

Tuberculosis (TB) is a bacterial disease and major worldwide killer with an increased UK incidence rate. This study aimed to explore the views of National Health Service (NHS) staff on TB service delivery models of care in NHS boards across Scotland. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 nurse specialists and five consultants in public health medicine (CPHM) across five Scottish NHS boards. Five main themes emerged and findings showed that: directly observed treatment (DOT) was provided only to patients assessed to be at high risk of poor treatment adherence; contact tracing was conducted by participating NHS boards but screening at ports was thought to be weak; all NHS boards implemented TB awareness campaigns for TB health professionals; three NHS boards conducted team meetings that monitored TB patient progress; participants believed that TB funding should be increased; contact tracing was routinely conducted by TB nurses. Improved TB screening at airports was recommended and a need for TB health education for high risk groups was identified.

The effectiveness of primary care based risk stratification for targeted latent tuberculosis infection screening in recent immigrants to the UK: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Most UK tuberculosis (TB) cases occur in immigrants from high TB incidence areas, implicating reactivation of imported latent TB infection (LTBI). Strategies to identify and treat immigrant LTBI in primary care at the time of first registration (coded Flag-4) may be effective.

METHODS

This was an 11-year retrospective cohort study to evaluate effectiveness of LTBI screening in recent immigrants to Leicestershire at their time of primary care registration. We examined the temporal relationship between dates of Flag-4 primary care registration (n=59 007) and foreign-born TB (FB-TB) cases (n=857), for immigrants arriving to the UK after 1999. TB diagnosed >6 months after registration was considered potentially preventable with screening. Primary outcomes were the potentially preventable proportion of FB-TB and the number needed to screen (NNS) of immigrants to identify one potentially preventable case, stratified by age and region of origin.

RESULTS

250 cases (29%) were potentially preventable in Flag-4-registered immigrants. Overall, 511 cases (60%) were potentially preventable among primary-care registered immigrants, implying a significant proportion without Flag-4 status. Prospective TB incidence (95% CI) after Flag-4 registration was 183 (163 to 205) cases/100 000 person-years, with a NNS (95% CI) of 145 (130 to 162). Targeted screening was most effective for 16-35 year olds from TB incidence regions 150-499/100 000 (NNS (95% CI)=65 (57 to 74), preventing 159 (18.7%) cases). Unpreventable TB risk increased with delayed primary care registration after UK entry (p<0.001) and was associated with HIV seropositivity (relative risk (95% CI)=1.89 (1.25 to 2.84), p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

LTBI screening at primary care registration offers an effective strategy for potentially identifying immigrants at high risk of developing TB.

Tuberculosis case finding based on symptom screening among immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Rome

Background

In Italy the proportion of cases of tuberculosis in persons originating from high-prevalence countries has been increasing in the last decade. We designed a study to assess adherence to and yield of a tuberculosis screening programme based on symptom screening conducted at primary care centres for regular and irregular immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers.

Methods

Presence of symptoms suggestive of active tuberculosis was investigated by verbal screening in migrants presenting for any medical condition to 3 free primary care centres in the province of Rome. Individuals reporting at least one symptom were referred to a tuberculosis clinic for diagnostic workup.

Results

Among 2142 migrants enrolled, 254 (11.9%) reported at least one symptom suggestive of active tuberculosis and 176 were referred to the tuberculosis clinic. Of them, 80 (45.4%) did not present for diagnostic evaluation. Tuberculosis was diagnosed in 7 individuals representing 0.33% of those screened and 7.3% of those evaluated for tuberculosis.

Conclusion

The overall yield of this intervention was in the range reported for other tuberculosis screening programmes for migrants, although we recorded an unsatisfactory adherence to diagnostic workup. Possible advantages of this intervention include low cost and reduced burden of medical procedures for the screened population. Further evaluation of this approach appears to be warranted.

Face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination

BACKGROUND

Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

Evidence-based sample size estimation based upon an updated meta-regression analysis

A traditional meta-analysis examines the overall effectiveness of an intervention by producing a pooled estimate of treatment efficacy. In contrast to this, a meta-regression model seeks to determine whether a study-level covariate (X) is a plausible source of heterogeneity in a set of treatment effects. Upon performing such an analysis, the results may suggest the presence of a meaningful amount of variation in the treatment effects because of the covariate; however, the current set of trials may not provide sufficient statistical power for such a conclusion. The proposed approach provides quantitative insight into the amount of support that a new trial may provide to the hypothesis that X is a meaningful source of variation in an updated meta-regression model, which includes both the previously completed and the proposed trial. This empirical algorithm allows examination of the potential feasibility of a planned study of various sizes to further support or refute the hypothesis that X is a statistically significant source of variation. A detailed example illustrates the sample size estimation algorithm for both a planned individually or cluster randomized trial to investigate the now commonly accepted impact of geographical latitude on the observed effectiveness of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Pan-London tuberculosis services: a service evaluation

Background

London has the largest proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases of any western European capital, with almost half of new cases drug-resistant. Prevalence varies considerably between and within boroughs with research suggesting inadequate control of TB transmission in London. Economic pressures may exacerbate the already considerable challenges for service organisation and delivery within this context. This paper presents selected findings from an evaluation of London’s TB services’ organisation, delivery, professional workforce and skill mix, intended to support development of a strategic framework for a pan-London TB service. These may also interest health service professionals and managers in TB services in the UK, other European cities and countries and in services currently delivered by multiple providers operating independently.

Methods

Objectives were: 1) To establish how London’s TB services are structured and delivered in relation to leadership, management, organisation and delivery, coordination, staffing and support; 2) To identify tools/models for calculating skill mix as a basis for identifying skill mix requirements in delivering TB services across London; 3) To inform a strategic framework for the delivery of a pan-London TB service, which may be applicable to other European cities. The multi-method service audit evaluation comprised documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews with TB service users (n = 10), lead TB health professionals and managers (n = 13) representing London’s five sectors and focus groups with TB nurses (n = 8) and non-London network professionals (n = 2).

Results

Findings showed TB services to be mainly hospital-based, with fewer community-based services. Documentary analysis and professionals’ interviews suggested difficulties with early access to services, low suspicion index amongst some GPs and restricted referral routes. Interviews indicated lack of managed accommodation for difficult to treat patients, professional workforce shortages, a need for strategic leadership, nurse-led clinics and structured career paths for TB nurses and few social care/outreach workers to support patients with complex needs.

Conclusions

This paper has identified key issues relating to London’s TB services’ organisation, delivery, professional workforce and skill mix. The majority of these present challenges which need to be addressed as part of the future development of a strategic framework for a pan-London TB service. More consistent strategic planning/co-ordination and sharing of best practice is needed, together with a review of pan-London TB workforce development strategy, encompassing changing professional roles, skills development needs and patient pathways. These findings may be relevant with the development of TB services in other European cities.

Poor uptake of primary healthcare registration among recent entrants to the UK: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Uptake of healthcare among migrants is a complex and controversial topic; there are multiple recognised barriers to accessing primary care. Delays in presentation to healthcare services may result in a greater burden on costly emergency care, as well as increased public health risks. This study aimed to explore some of the factors influencing registration of new entrants with general practitioners (GPs).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Port health screening at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

252 559 new entrants to the UK, whose entry was documented by the port health tuberculosis screening processes at Heathrow and Gatwick. 191 had insufficient information for record linkage.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Registration with a GP practice within the UK, as measured through record linkage with the Personal Demographics Service (PDS) database.

RESULTS

Only 32.5% of 252 368 individuals were linked to the PDS, suggesting low levels of registration in the study population. Women were more likely to register than men, with a RR ratio of 1.44 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.46). Compared with those from Europe, individuals of nationalities from the Americas (0.43 (0.39 to 0.47)) and Africa (0.74 (0.69 to 0.79)) were less likely to register. Similarly, students (0.83 (0.81 to 0.85)), long-stay visitors (0.82 (0.77 to 0.87)) and asylum seekers (0.46 (0.42 to 0.51)) were less likely to register with a GP than other migrant groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Levels of registration with GPs within this selected group of new entrants, as measured through record linkage, are low. Migrant groups with the lowest proportion registered are likely to be those with the highest health needs. The UK would benefit from a targeted approach to identify the migrants least likely to register for healthcare and to promote access among both users and service providers.

Active case finding in contacts of people with tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis is a major global health challenge that is caused by a bacteria which is spread by airborne droplets. Mostly patients are identified in high-burden countries when they visit health care facilities ('passive case finding'). Contacts of tuberculosis patients are a high-risk group for developing the disease. Actively screening contacts of people with confirmed tuberculosis may improve case detection rates and control of the disease.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare whether active case finding among contacts of people with confirmed tuberculosis increases case detection compared to usual practice.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In April 2011 we searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and mRCT. We also checked article reference lists, the International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and contacted relevant researchers and organizations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials of active case finding to detect tuberculosis disease among close and casual contacts of patients with microbiologically proven pulmonary tuberculosis (by sputum smear and/or culture).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed eligibility and the methodological quality of the trials that were extracted using a search method that was outlined previously.

MAIN RESULTS

No trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. One RCT did test the effect of active case finding in contacts, but the intervention in that trial also included screening for, and treatment of, LTBI in contacts; and the separate effect of active case finding could not be estimated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently insufficient data from randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of active case finding for tuberculosis among contacts of patients with confirmed disease. While observational studies show that contacts have a higher risk of developing tuberculosis than the general population, further research is needed to determine whether active case finding among contacts significantly increases case detection rates.

Tuberculosis: evidence review for newly arriving immigrants and refugees

BACKGROUND

The foreign-born population bears a disproportionate health burden from tuberculosis, with a rate of active tuberculosis 20 times that of the non-Aboriginal Canadian-born population, and could therefore benefit from tuberculosis screening programs. We reviewed evidence to determine the burden of tuberculosis in immigrant populations, to assess the effectiveness of screening and treatment programs for latent tuberculosis infection, and to identify potential interventions to improve effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search for evidence of the burden of tuberculosis in immigrant populations and the benefits and harms, applicability, clinical considerations, and implementation issues of screening and treatment programs for latent tuberculosis infection in the general and immigrant populations. The quality of this evidence was assessed and ranked using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

RESULTS

Chemoprophylaxis with isoniazid is highly efficacious in decreasing the development of active tuberculosis in people with latent tuberculosis infection who adhere to treatment. Monitoring for hepatotoxicity is required at all ages, but close monitoring is required in those 50 years of age and older. Adherence to screening and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection is poor, but it can be increased if care is delivered in a culturally sensitive manner.

INTERPRETATION

Immigrant populations have high rates of active tuberculosis that could be decreased by screening for and treating latent tuberculosis infection. Several patient, provider and infrastructure barriers, poor diagnostic tests, and the long treatment course, however, limit effectiveness of current programs. Novel approaches that educate and engage patients, their communities and primary care practitioners might improve the effectiveness of these programs.

Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.

A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals

OBJECTIVE

Statisticians have criticized the use of significance testing to compare the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Furthermore, some have advocated for the use of regression adjustment to estimate the effect of treatment after adjusting for potential imbalances in prognostically important baseline covariates between treatment groups.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined 114 RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2007.

RESULTS

Significance testing was used to compare baseline characteristics between treatment arms in 38% of the studies. The practice was very rare in British journals and more common in the U.S. journals. In 29% of the studies, the primary outcome was continuous, whereas in 65% of the studies, the primary outcome was either dichotomous or time-to-event in nature. Adjustment for baseline covariates was reported when estimating the treatment effect in 34% of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest the need for greater editorial consistency across journals in the reporting of RCTs. Furthermore, there is a need for greater debate about the relative merits of unadjusted vs. adjusted estimates of treatment effect.

Pulmonary tuberculosis case detection through fortuitous cough screening during home visits

OBJECTIVE

To compare the yield of active tuberculosis (TB) case detection among risk groups during home visits with passive detection among patients at health services.

METHODS

In April 2004, in a first phase, we introduced, active screening for coughing among all family members of patients that were visited at home by their family doctor or nurse for other reasons. Subsequently, from October 2004 onwards, active screening was restricted to family members belonging to groups at risk of TB.

RESULTS

The overall detection rate of TB increased from 6.7/100,000 during passive detection at health services before the intervention to 26.2/100,000 inhabitants when passive detection was complemented by active case finding. Active screening among risk groups yielded 35 TB cases per 1000 persons screened compared to 20 TB cases per 1000 persons passively screened at health services. Active case finding was particularly efficient in those coughing for 3 weeks or more (107/1000 screened).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that active case finding in groups at risk during home visits increases the case detection rate in the population and permits the identification of cases that may not be detected through passive case finding at health facility level.

Leaders, leadership and future primary care clinical research

BACKGROUND

A strong and self confident primary care workforce can deliver the highest quality care and outcomes equitably and cost effectively. To meet the increasing demands being made of it, primary care needs its own thriving research culture and knowledge base.

METHODS

Review of recent developments supporting primary care clinical research.

RESULTS

Primary care research has benefited from a small group of passionate leaders and significant investment in recent decades in some countries. Emerging from this has been innovation in research design and focus, although less is known of the effect on research output.

CONCLUSION

Primary care research is now well placed to lead a broad re-vitalisation of academic medicine, answering questions of relevance to practitioners, patients, communities and Government. Key areas for future primary care research leaders to focus on include exposing undergraduates early to primary care research, integrating this early exposure with doctoral and postdoctoral research career support, further expanding cross disciplinary approaches, and developing useful measures of output for future primary care research investment.