IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A yield and cost comparison of tuberculosis contact investigation and intensified case finding in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Kakinda
  • Joseph K B Matovu

Abstract

Introduction: Resource constraints in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) limit tuberculosis (TB) contact investigation despite evidence its benefits could outweigh costs, with increased efficiency when compared with intensified case finding (ICF). However, there is limited data on yield and cost per TB case identified. We compared yield and cost per TB case identified for ICF and Tuberculosis-Contact Investigation (TB-CI) in Uganda. Methods: A retrospective cohort study based on data from 12 Ugandan hospitals was done between April and September 2017. Two methods of TB case finding (i.e. ICF and TB-CI) were compared. Regarding ICF, patients either self-reported their signs and symptoms or were prompted by health care workers, while TB-CI was done by home-visiting and screening contacts of TB patients. Patients who were presumed to have tuberculosis were requested to produce a sample for examination. TB yield was defined as a ratio of diagnoses to tests, and this was computed per method of diagnosis. The cost per TB case identified (medical, personnel, transportation and training) for each diagnosis method were computed using the activity-based approach, from the health care perspective. Cost data were analyzed using Windows Excel. Results: 454 index TB cases and 2,707 of their household contacts were investigated. Thirty-one per cent of contacts (840/2707) were found to be presumptive TB cases. A total of 7,685 tests were done, 6,967 for ICF and 718 for TB-CI. The yields were 18.62% (1297/6967) and 5.29% (38/718) for ICF and TB-CI, respectively. It cost US$ 120.60 to diagnose a case of TB using ICF compared to US$ 877.57 for TB-CI. Conclusion: The yield of TB-CI was found to be four-times lower and seven-times costlier compared to ICF. These findings suggest that ICF can improve TB case detection at a low cost, particularly in high TB prevalent settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Kakinda & Joseph K B Matovu, 2020. "A yield and cost comparison of tuberculosis contact investigation and intensified case finding in Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234418
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234418
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234418&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234418?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:pone00:0234418. 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.