BackgroundStudies of the quality of tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic evaluation of patients in high burden countries have generally shown poor adherence to international or national guidelines. Health worker perspectives on barriers to improving TB diagnostic evaluation are critical for developing clinic-level interventions to improve guideline implementation.MethodsWe conducted structured, in-depth interviews with staff at six district-level health centers in Uganda to elicit their perceptions regarding barriers to TB evaluation. Interviews were transcribed, coded with a standardized framework, and analyzed to identify emergent themes. We used thematic analysis to develop a logic model depicting health system and contextual barriers to recommended TB evaluation practices. To identify possible clinic-level interventions to improve TB evaluation, we categorized findings into predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors as described by the PRECEDE model, focusing on potentially modifiable behaviors at the clinic-level.ResultsWe interviewed 22 health center staff between February 2010 and November 2011. Participants identified key health system barriers hindering TB evaluation, including: stock-outs of drugs/supplies, inadequate space and infrastructure, lack of training, high workload, low staff motivation, and poor coordination of health center services. Contextual barrier challenges to TB evaluation were also reported, including the time and costs borne by patients to seek and complete TB evaluation, poor health literacy, and stigma against patients with TB. These contextual barriers interacted with health system barriers to contribute to sub-standard TB evaluation. Examples of intervention strategies that could address these barriers and are related to PRECEDE model components include: assigned mentors/peer coaching for new staff (targets predisposing factor of low motivation and need for support to conduct job duties); facilitated workshops to implement same day microscopy (targets enabling factor of patient barriers to completing TB evaluation), and recognition/incentives for good TB screening practices (targets low motivation and self-efficacy).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that health system and contextual barriers work together to impede TB diagnosis at health centers and, if not addressed, could hinder TB case detection efforts. Qualitative research that improves understanding of the barriers facing TB providers is critical to developing targeted interventions to improve TB care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0668-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Primary care physicians initiated a substantial number of LTBI treatments, but less than half of patients completed treatment regardless of the physician specialty. Primary care physicians should be supported to enhance treatment completion.

Background. The effect of Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) scale-up on patient outcomes in low-income settings with a high tuberculosis (TB) burden has not been established. We sought to characterize the effectiveness of Xpert as implemented across different levels of the healthcare system in Uganda.Methods. We reviewed laboratory records from 2012 to 2014 at 18 health facilities throughout Uganda. In 8 facilities, Xpert had been implemented onsite since 2012, and in 10 sites Xpert was available as an offsite referral test from another facility. We describe Xpert testing volumes by facility, Xpert and smear microscopy results, and downtime due to malfunction and cartridge stockouts. We compare TB treatment initiation as well as time to treatment between facilities implementing Xpert and those that did not.Results. The median number of Xpert assays run at implementing facilities was 25/month (interquartile range [IQR], 10–63), amounting to 8% of total capacity. Among 1251 assays run for a new TB diagnosis, 19% were positive. Among 1899 patients with smear-negative presumptive TB, the proportion starting TB treatment was similar between Xpert facilities (11%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9%–13%) and non-Xpert facilities (9%; 95% CI, 8%–11%; P = .325). In Xpert facilities, a positive Xpert preceded TB treatment initiation in only 12 of 70 (17%) smear-negative patients initiated on treatment.Conclusions. Xpert was underutilized in Uganda and did not significantly increase the number of patients starting treatment for TB. Greater attention must be paid to appropriate implementation of novel diagnostic tests for TB if these new tools are to impact patient important outcomes.

IntroductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends household tuberculosis (TB) contact investigation in low-income countries, but most contacts do not complete a full clinical and laboratory evaluation.MethodsWe performed a randomised trial of home-based, SMS-facilitated, household TB contact investigation in Kampala, Uganda. Community health workers (CHWs) visited homes of index patients with pulmonary TB to screen household contacts for TB. Entire households were randomly allocated to clinic (standard-of-care) or home (intervention) evaluation. In the intervention arm, CHWs offered HIV testing to adults; collected sputum from symptomatic contacts and persons living with HIV (PLWHs) if ≥5 years; and transported sputum for microbiologic testing. CHWs referred PLWHs, children <5 years, and anyone unable to complete sputum testing to clinic. Sputum testing results and/or follow-up instructions were returned by automated SMS texts. The primary outcome was completion of a full TB evaluation within 14 days; secondary outcomes were TB and HIV diagnoses and treatments among screened contacts.ResultsThere were 471 contacts of 190 index patients allocated to the intervention and 448 contacts of 182 index patients allocated to the standard-of-care. CHWs identified 190/471 (40%) intervention and 213/448 (48%) standard-of-care contacts requiring TB evaluation. In the intervention arm, CHWs obtained sputum from 35/91 (39%) of sputum-eligible contacts and SMSs were sent to 95/190 (50%). Completion of TB evaluation in the intervention and standard-of-care arms at 14 days (14% versus 15%; difference −1%, 95% CI −9% to 7%, p=0.81) and yields of confirmed TB (1.5% versus 1.1%, p=0.62) and new HIV (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.90) diagnoses were similar.ConclusionsHome-based, SMS-facilitated evaluation did not improve completion or yield of household TB contact investigation, likely due to challenges delivering the intervention components.

Background: Many high burden countries are scaling-up GeneXpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) testing for tuberculosis (TB) using a hub-and-spoke model. However, the effect of scale up on reducing TB has been limited. We sought to characterize variation in implementation of referral-based Xpert TB testing across Uganda, and to identify health system factors that may enhance or prevent high-quality implementation of Xpert testing services. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study triangulating quantitative and qualitative data sources at 23 community health centers linked to one of 15 Xpert testing sites between November 2016 and May 2017 to assess health systems infrastructure for hub-and-spoke Xpert testing. Data sources included a standardized site assessment survey, routine TB notification data, and field notes from site visits. Results: Challenges with Xpert implementation occurred at every step of the diagnostic evaluation process, leading to low overall uptake of testing. Of 2192 patients eligible for TB testing, only 574 (26%) who initiated testing were referred for Xpert testing. Of those, 54 (9.4%) were Xpert confirmed positive just under half initiated treatment within 14 days (n = 25, 46%). Gaps in required infrastructure at 23 community health centers to support the huband-spoke system included lack of refrigeration (n = 14, 61%) for sputum testing and lack of telephone/mobile communication (n = 21, 91%). Motorcycle riders responsible for transporting sputum to Xpert sites operated variable with trips once, twice, or three times a week at 10 (43%), nine (39%) and four (17%) health centers, respectively. Staff recorded Xpert results in the TB laboratory register at only one health center and called patients with positive results at only two health centers. Of the 15 Xpert testing sites, five (33%) had at least one non-functioning module. The median number of tests per day was 3.57 (IQR 2.06-4.54), and 10 (67%) sites had error/invalid rates > 5%. Conclusions: Although Xpert devices are now widely distributed throughout Uganda, health system factors across the continuum from test referral to results reporting and treatment initiation preclude effective implementation of Xpert testing for patients presenting to peripheral health centers. Support for scale up of innovative technologies should include support for communication, coordination and health systems integration.