↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of community health worker versus home-based guardians for directly observed treatment of tuberculosis in Vitória, Espírito Santo State, Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of community health worker versus home-based guardians for directly observed treatment of tuberculosis in Vitória, Espírito Santo State, Brazil
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, May 2011
DOI 10.1590/s0102-311x2011000500012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thiago Nascimento do Prado, Nikolas Wada, Leticia Molino Guidoni, Jonathan E. Golub, Reynaldo Dietze, Ethel Leonor Noia Maciel

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the costs and outcomes associated with guardian-supervised directly observed treatment relative to the standard of care Directly Observed Therapy, Short Course (DOTS) provided by community health workers (CHW). New cases of culture-positive pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) treated in Vitória, Espírito Santo State, Brazil, between January 2005 and December 2006 were interviewed and chose their preferred treatment strategy. Costs incurred by providers and patients (and patients' families) were estimated, and cost-effectiveness was assessed by comparing costs per successfully treated patient. 130 patients were included in the study; 84 chose CHW-supervised DOTS and 46 chose guardian-supervised DOTS. 45 of 46 (98%) patients treated with guardian-supervised DOTS were cured or completed treatment compared to 70/84 (83%) of the CHW-supervised patients (p = 0.01). Logistic regression showed only the strategy of supervision to be a significant association with treatment outcome, with guardian-supervised care strongly protective. Cost per patient treated with guardian-supervised DOTS was US$398, compared to US$548 for CHW-supervised DOTS. The guardian-supervised DOTS is an attractive option to complement CHW-supervised DOTS.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 2%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 1%
Student > Postgraduate 1 1%
Researcher 1 1%
Unknown 84 94%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 September 2011.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,565
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,910
of 123,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 123,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.