IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0144936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Direct Observation (DO) for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: Do We Really DO?

Author

Listed:
  • Stella Benbaba
  • Petros Isaakidis
  • Mrinalini Das
  • Sonakshi Jadhav
  • Tony Reid
  • Jennifer Furin

Abstract

Introduction: Directly-observed therapy (DOT) is recommended for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients during their entire treatment duration. However, there is limited published evidence on implementation of direct observation (DO) in the field. This study aims to detail whether DO was followed with DR-TB patients in a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) tuberculosis program in Mumbai, India. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study. Existing qualitative data from a purposively-selected subset of 12 patients, 5 DOT-providers and 5 family members, were assessed in order to determine how DO was implemented. A questionnaire-based survey of DR-TB patients, their DOT-providers and MSF staff was completed between June and August 2014. Patients were defined as”following Strict DO” and “following DO” if a DOT-provider had seen the patient swallow his/her medications “every day” or “most of the days” respectively. If DO was not followed, reasons were also recorded. The qualitative data were analysed for theme and content and used to supplement the questionnaire-based data. Results: A total of 70 DR-TB patients, 65 DOT-providers and 21 MSF health staff were included. Fifty-five per cent of the patients were HIV-co-infected and 41% had multidrug-resistant-TB plus additional resistance to a fluoroquinolone. Among all patients, only 14% (10/70) and 20% (14/70) self-reported “following Strict DO” and “following DO” respectively. Among DOT-providers, 46% (30/65) reported that their patients “followed DO”. MSF health staff reported none of the patients “followed DO”. Reasons for not implementing DO included the unavailability of DOT-provider, time spent, stigma and treatment adverse events. The qualitative data also revealed that “Strict DO” was rarely followed and noted the same reasons for lack of implementation. Conclusion: This mixed-methods study has found that a majority of patients with DR-TB in Mumbai did not follow DO, and this was reported by patients and care-providers. These data likely reflect the reality of DO implementation in many high-burden settings, since this relatively small cohort was supported and closely monitored by a skilled team with access to multiple resources. The findings raise important concerns about the necessity of DO as a “pillar” of DR-TB treatment which need further validation in other settings. They also suggest that patient-centred adherence strategies might be better approaches for supporting patients on treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Stella Benbaba & Petros Isaakidis & Mrinalini Das & Sonakshi Jadhav & Tony Reid & Jennifer Furin, 2015. "Direct Observation (DO) for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: Do We Really DO?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0144936
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144936
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144936&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0144936?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0144936. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.