ObjectivePsychosocial and economic (socioeconomic) barriers, including poverty, stigma and catastrophic costs, impede access to tuberculosis (TB) services in low-income countries. We aimed to characterise the socioeconomic barriers and facilitators of accessing TB services in Nepal to inform the design of a locally appropriate socioeconomic support intervention for TB-affected households.DesignFrom August 2018 to July 2019, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study consisting of semistructured focus group discussions (FGDs) with purposively selected multisectoral stakeholders. The data were managed in NVivo V.12, coded by consensus and analysed thematically.SettingThe study was conducted in four districts, Makwanpur, Chitwan, Dhanusha and Mahottari, which have a high prevalence of poverty and TB.ParticipantsSeven FGDs were conducted with 54 in-country stakeholders, grouped by stakeholders, including people with TB (n=21), community stakeholders (n=13) and multidisciplinary TB healthcare professionals (n=20) from the National TB Programme.ResultsThe perceived socioeconomic barriers to accessing TB services were: inadequate TB knowledge and advocacy; high food and transportation costs; income loss and stigma. The perceived facilitators to accessing TB care and services were: enhanced championing and awareness-raising about TB and TB services; social protection including health insurance; cash, vouchers and/or nutritional allowance to cover food and travel costs; and psychosocial support and counselling integrated with existing adherence counselling from the National TB Programme.ConclusionThese results suggest that support interventions that integrate TB education, psychosocial counselling and expand on existing cash transfer schemes would be locally appropriate and could address the socioeconomic barriers to accessing and engaging with TB services faced by TB-affected households in Nepal. The findings have been used to inform the design of a socioeconomic support intervention for TB-affected households. The acceptability, feasibility and impact of this intervention on TB-related costs, stigma and TB treatment outcomes, is now being evaluated in a pilot implementation study in Nepal.

The aim of this study was to compare costs and socio-economic impact of tuberculosis (TB) for patients diagnosed through active (ACF) and passive case finding (PCF) in Nepal. A longitudinal costing survey was conducted in four districts of Nepal from April 2018 to October 2019. Costs were collected using the WHO TB Patient Costs Survey at three time points: intensive phase of treatment, continuation phase of treatment and at treatment completion. Direct and indirect costs and socio-economic impact (poverty headcount, employment status and coping strategies) were evaluated throughout the treatment. Prevalence of catastrophic costs was estimated using the WHO threshold. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equation were used to evaluate risk of incurring high costs, catastrophic costs and socio-economic impact of TB over time. A total of 111 ACF and 110 PCF patients were included. ACF patients were more likely to have no education (75% vs 57%, P = 0.006) and informal employment (42% vs 24%, P = 0.005) Compared with the PCF group, ACF patients incurred lower costs during the pretreatment period (mean total cost: US$55 vs US$87, P < 0.001) and during the pretreatment plus treatment periods (mean total direct costs: US$72 vs US$101, P < 0.001). Socio-economic impact was severe for both groups throughout the whole treatment, with 32% of households incurring catastrophic costs. Catastrophic costs were associated with ‘no education’ status [odds ratio = 2.53(95% confidence interval = 1.16–5.50)]. There is a severe and sustained socio-economic impact of TB on affected households in Nepal. The community-based ACF approach mitigated costs and reached the most vulnerable patients. Alongside ACF, social protection policies must be extended to achieve the zero catastrophic costs milestone of the End TB strategy.

Tuberculosis (TB), the leading single infectious diseases killer globally, is driven by poverty. Conversely, having TB worsens impoverishment. During TB illness, lost income and out-of-pocket costs can become “catastrophic”, leading patients to abandon treatment, develop drug-resistance, and die. WHO’s 2015 End TB Strategy recommends eliminating catastrophic costs and providing socioeconomic support for TB-affected people. However, there is negligible evidence to guide the design and implementation of such socioeconomic support, especially in low-income, TB-endemic countries. A national, multi-sectoral workshop was held in Kathmandu, Nepal, on the 11th and 12th September 2019, to develop a shortlist of feasible, locally appropriate socioeconomic support interventions for TB-affected households in Nepal, a low-income country with significant TB burden. The workshop brought together key stakeholders in Nepal including from the Ministry of Health and Population, Department of Health Services, Provincial Health Directorate, Health Offices, National TB Program (NTP); and TB/Leprosy Officers, healthcare workers, community health volunteers, TB-affected people, and external development partners (EDP). During the workshop, participants reviewed current Nepal NTP data and strategy, discussed the preliminary results of a mixed-methods study of the socioeconomic determinants and consequences of TB in Nepal, described existing and potential socioeconomic interventions for TB-affected households in Nepal, and selected the most promising interventions for future randomized controlled trial evaluations in Nepal. This report describes the activities, outcomes, and recommendations from the workshop.

Background: WHO’s 2015 End TB Strategy advocates social and economic (socioeconomic) support for TB-affected households to improve TB control. However, evidence concerning socioeconomic support for TB-affected households remains limited, especially in low-income countries. Protocol: This mixed-methods study in Nepal will: evaluate the socioeconomic impact of accessing TB diagnosis and care (Project 1); and create a shortlist of feasible, locally-appropriate interventions to mitigate this impact (Project 2). The study will be conducted in the Chitwan, Mahottari, Makawanpur, and Dhanusha districts of Nepal, which have frequent TB and poverty. The study population will include: approximately 200 people with TB (Cases) starting TB treatment with Nepal’s National TB Program and 100 randomly-selected people without TB (Controls) in the same sites (Project 1); and approximately 40 key in-country stakeholders from Nepal including people with TB, community leaders, and TB healthcare professionals (Project 2). During Project 1, visits will be made to people with TB’s households during months 3 and 6 of TB treatment, and a single visit made to Control households. During visits, participants will be asked about: TB-related costs (if receiving treatment), food insecurity, stigma; TB-related knowledge; household poverty level; social capital; and quality of life. During Project 2, stakeholders will be invited to participate in: a survey and focus group discussion (FGD) to characterise socioeconomic impact, barriers and facilitators to accessing and engaging with TB care in Nepal; and a one-day workshop to review FGD findings and suggest interventions to mitigate the barriers identified. Ethics and dissemination: The study has received ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through scientific meetings, open access publications, and a national workshop in Nepal.  Conclusions: This research will strengthen understanding of the socioeconomic impact of TB in Nepal and generate a shortlist of feasible and locally-appropriate socioeconomic interventions for TB-affected households for trial evaluation.

Background: WHO’s 2015 End TB Strategy advocates social and economic (socioeconomic) support for TB-affected households to improve TB control. However, evidence concerning socioeconomic support for TB-affected households remains limited, especially in low-income countries. Protocol: This mixed-methods study in Nepal will: evaluate the socioeconomic impact of accessing TB diagnosis and care (Project 1); and create a shortlist of feasible, locally-appropriate interventions to mitigate this impact (Project 2). The study will be conducted in the Chitwan, Mahottari, Makawanpur, and Dhanusha districts of Nepal, which have frequent TB and poverty. The study population will include: approximately 200 people with TB (Cases) starting TB treatment with Nepal’s National TB Program and 100 randomly-selected people without TB (Controls) in the same sites (Project 1); and approximately 40 key in-country stakeholders from Nepal including people with TB, community leaders, and TB healthcare professionals (Project 2). During Project 1, visits will be made to people with TB’s households during months 3 and 6 of TB treatment, and a single visit made to Control households. During visits, participants will be asked about: TB-related costs (if receiving treatment), food insecurity, stigma; TB-related knowledge; household poverty level; social capital; and quality of life. During Project 2, stakeholders will be invited to participate in: a survey and focus group discussion (FGD) to characterise socioeconomic impact, barriers and facilitators to accessing and engaging with TB care in Nepal; and a one-day workshop to review FGD findings and suggest interventions to mitigate the barriers identified. Ethics and dissemination: The study has received ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through scientific meetings, open access publications, and a national workshop in Nepal.  Conclusions: This research will strengthen understanding of the socioeconomic impact of TB in Nepal and generate a shortlist of feasible and locally-appropriate socioeconomic interventions for TB-affected households for trial evaluation.