Prioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis : use of population impact measures

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHeller, Richard F.
dc.contributor.authorGemmell, Islay
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, Richard
dc.contributor.authorBuchan, Iain
dc.contributor.authorAwasthi, Shally
dc.contributor.authorVolmink, Jimmy
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-14T13:15:48Z
dc.date.available2010-12-14T13:15:48Z
dc.date.issued2006-12
dc.date.updated2010-11-09T12:53:56Z
dc.description.abstractBackground: Population impact measures (PIMs) have been developed as tools to help policy-makers with locally relevant decisions over health risks and benefits. This involves estimating and prioritising potential benefits of interventions in specific populations. Using tuberculosis (TB) in India as an example, we examined the population impact of two interventions: direct observation of therapy and increasing case-finding. Methods: PIMs were calculated using published literature and national data for India, and applied to a notional population of 100 000 people. Data included the incidence or prevalence of smear-positive TB and the relative risk reduction from increasing case finding and the use of direct observation of therapy (applied to the baseline risks over the next year), and the incremental proportion of the population eligible for the proposed interventions. Results: In a population of 100 000 people in India, the directly observed component of the Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course (DOTS) programme may prevent 0.188 deaths from TB in the next year compared with 1.79 deaths by increasing TB case finding. The costs of direct observation are (in international dollars) I$5960 and of case finding are I$4839 or I$31702 and I$2703 per life saved respectively. Conclusion: Increasing case-finding for TB will save nearly 10 times more lives than will the use of the directly observed component of DOTS in India, at a smaller cost per life saved. The demonstration of the population impact, using simple and explicit numbers, may be of value to policy-makers as they prioritise interventions for their populations.en_ZA
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewed
dc.format.extent6 p.
dc.identifier.citationHeller, RF, Gemmell, I, Edwards, R, Buchan, I, Awasthi, S & Volmink, JA 2006, 'Prioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: use of population impact measures', BMC Medicine, 4(1):35.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn1741-7015
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-4-35
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/5116
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_ZA
dc.rights.holderHeller et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.en_ZA
dc.subjectTuberculosisen_ZA
dc.subjectPopulation impact measures (PIMs)en_ZA
dc.subjectDirectly Observed Treatment, Short-course (DOTS) programmeen_ZA
dc.subjectCase-finding for TB
dc.titlePrioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis : use of population impact measuresen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
heller_prioritising_2006.pdf
Size:
250.85 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Research Articles (Health Sciences)