| Title |
Where there is hope: a qualitative study examining patients’ adherence to multi-drug resistant tuberculosis treatment in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-016-1723-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shona Horter, Beverley Stringer, Jane Greig, Akhmet Amangeldiev, Mirzagaleb N. Tillashaikhov, Nargiza Parpieva, Zinaida Tigay, Philipp du Cros |
| Abstract |
Treatment for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is lengthy, has severe side effects, and raises adherence challenges. In the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Ministry of Health (MoH) programme in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan, a region with a high burden of MDR-TB, patient loss from treatment (LFT) remains high despite adherence support strategies. While certain factors associated with LFT have been identified, there is limited understanding of why some patients are able to adhere to treatment while others are not. We conducted a qualitative study to explore patients' experiences with MDR-TB treatment, with the aim of providing insight into the barriers and enablers to treatment-taking to inform future strategies of adherence support. Participants were purposively selected. Programme data were analysed to enable stratification of patients by adherence category, gender, and age. 52 in-depth interviews were conducted with MDR-TB patients (n = 35) and health practitioners (n = 12; MSF and MoH doctors, nurses, and counsellors), including five follow-up interviews. Interview notes, then transcripts, were analysed using coding to identify emerging patterns and themes. Manual analysis drew upon principles of grounded theory with constant comparison of codes and categories within and between cases to actively seek discrepancies and generate concepts from participant accounts. Ethics approval was received from the MoH of the Republic of Uzbekistan Ethics Committee and MSF Ethics Review Board. Several factors influenced adherence. Hope and high quality knowledge supported adherence; autonomy and control enabled optimal engagement with treatment-taking; and perceptions of the body, self, treatment, and disease influenced drug tolerance. As far as we are aware, the influence of patient autonomy and control on MDR-TB treatment-taking has not previously been described. In particular, the autonomy of married women around treatment-taking was potentially undermined through their societal position as daughter-in-law, compromising their ability to adhere to treatment. Patients' engagement with and adherence to treatment could be hindered by hierarchical practitioner-patient relationships that displaced authority, ownership, and responsibility from the patient. Our findings reinforce the need for an individualised and holistic approach to adherence support with engagement of patients as active participants in their care who feel ownership and responsibility for their treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 163 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 19% |
| Researcher | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 20% |
| Unknown | 36 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 41 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,441,933
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,016
of 7,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,530
of 365,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#54
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.