Quality of tuberculosis care in India: a systematic review.
Evidence suggests suboptimal quality of TB care, particularly in the private sector. Improvement should be a priority
Abstract
Background
While Indian studies have assessed care providers’ knowledge and practices, there is no systematic review on the quality of tuberculosis (TB) care.
Method
We searched multiple sources to identify studies (2000-2014) on providers’ knowledge and practices. We used the International Standards for TB Care to benchmark quality of care.
Results
Of the 47 studies included, 35 were questionnaire surveys and 12 used chart abstraction. None assessed actual practice using standardised patients. Heterogeneity in the findings precluded meta-analysis. Of 22 studies evaluating provider knowledge about using sputum smears for diagnosis, 10 found that less than half of providers had correct knowledge; 3 of 4 studies assessing self-reported practices by providers found that less than a quarter reported ordering smears for patients with chest symptoms. In 11 of 14 studies that assessed treatment, less than one third of providers knew the standard regimen for drug-susceptible TB. Adherence to standards in practice was generally lower than correct knowledge of those standards. Eleven studies with both public and private providers found higher levels of appropriate knowledge/practice in the public sector.
Conclusion
Available evidence suggests suboptimal quality of TB care, particularly in the private sector. Improvement of quality of care should be a priority for India.
This research was supported by the UK Department for International Development’s Operational Research Capacity Building Programme led by the International Union Against TB and Lung Disease (The Union)
Citation
S. Satyanarayana, R. Subbaraman, P. Shete, G. Gore, J. Das, A. Cattamanchi, K. Mayer, D. Menzies, A. D. Harries, P. Hopewel, M. Pai, (2015) Quality of tuberculosis care in India: a systematic review. International Journal Tuberculosis Lung Disease. 2015 July ; 19(7): 751–763. doi:10.5588/ijtld.15.0186.