Bridging the “know-do” gap to improve active case finding for tuberculosis in India: A qualitative exploration into national tuberculosis elimination program staffs’ perspectives

Abstract

Background In 2022, India’s national tuberculosis (TB) elimination program (NTEP) commissioned a national level evaluation of active case finding (ACF) for TB to guide evidence-based strategic planning. As part of this evaluation, based on secondary data analysis we observed that the quality of ACF was suboptimal in 2021. Hence, this study aimed to understand the enablers, barriers, and suggested solutions to improve ACF for TB in India from NTEP staff (provider) perspective. Methods This was a descriptive qualitative study involving key informant interviews from six districts and eight states, conducted between February and August 2023. We purposively selected key state- district- and sub-district-level program managers and implementers who were experienced and vocal. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by research interns and investigators. Two investigators independently did manual descriptive thematic analysis, and a third investigator resolved inconsistencies. The themes and categories emerged by collating together the results of the coding process. Results A total of 34 key informant interviews were conducted and of these, four were repeat interviews. Adequate budgets for ACF including incentives, performance review mechanism, engagement of all stakeholders, adopting a community friendly approach, use of rapid diagnostic tests and digitalization were the perceived enablers. In some states ACF was implemented in general population (not restricted to high-risk population) following directives at state level. There were limited mechanisms to ensure ACF quality indicators were met before disbursing incentives and cross-verification of the aggregate ACF care cascade numbers that were reported in Ni-kshay (electronic TB information management system under NTEP). In addition to the state and district level implementers having limited understanding of concepts around ACF (quality indicators, number needed to screen and yield), we also inferred the presence of a ‘know-do’ gap for many activities under ACF. The suggested solutions were around capacity building and quality improvement strategies. Conclusion The existing national ACF guidance should be revised to emphasize capacity building, need to carry out ACF in high-risk (not general) population, quality control-linked incentives, and regular implementation monitoring of the activities. This should contribute towards better coverage and improved quality translating into better ACF outcomes.