Cargando…

Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Poverty undermines the adherence of patients to tuberculosis treatment. A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the extent to which economic support in the form of a voucher would improve patients’ adherence to treatment, and their treatment outcomes....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lutge, Elizabeth, Lewin, Simon, Volmink, Jimmy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24947537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-236
_version_ 1782324789800599552
author Lutge, Elizabeth
Lewin, Simon
Volmink, Jimmy
author_facet Lutge, Elizabeth
Lewin, Simon
Volmink, Jimmy
author_sort Lutge, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Poverty undermines the adherence of patients to tuberculosis treatment. A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the extent to which economic support in the form of a voucher would improve patients’ adherence to treatment, and their treatment outcomes. Although the trial showed a modest improvement in the treatment success rates of the intervention group, this was not statistically significant, due in part to the low fidelity to the trial intervention. A qualitative process evaluation, conducted in the final few months of the trial, explained some of the factors that contributed to this low fidelity. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with patients who received vouchers, nurses in intervention clinics, personnel in shops who administered the vouchers, and managers of the TB Control Programme. These interviews were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The low fidelity to the trial intervention can be explained by two main factors. The first was nurses’ tendency to ‘ration’ the vouchers, only giving them to the most needy of eligible patients and leaving out those eligible patients whom they felt were financially more comfortable. The second was logistical issues related to the administration of the voucher as vouchers were not always available for patients on their appointed clinic dates, necessitating further visits to the clinics which they were not always able to make. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation identifies some of the most important factors that contributed to the results of this pragmatic trial. It highlights the value of process evaluations as tools to explain the results of randomized trials and emphasizes the importance of implementers as ‘street level bureaucrats’ who may profoundly affect the way an intervention is administered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50689131, registered 21 April 2009. The trial protocol is available at the following web address: http://www.hst.org.za/publications/study-protocol-economic-incentives-improving-clinical-outcomes-patients-tb-south-africa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4086265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40862652014-07-09 Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial Lutge, Elizabeth Lewin, Simon Volmink, Jimmy Trials Research BACKGROUND: Poverty undermines the adherence of patients to tuberculosis treatment. A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the extent to which economic support in the form of a voucher would improve patients’ adherence to treatment, and their treatment outcomes. Although the trial showed a modest improvement in the treatment success rates of the intervention group, this was not statistically significant, due in part to the low fidelity to the trial intervention. A qualitative process evaluation, conducted in the final few months of the trial, explained some of the factors that contributed to this low fidelity. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with patients who received vouchers, nurses in intervention clinics, personnel in shops who administered the vouchers, and managers of the TB Control Programme. These interviews were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The low fidelity to the trial intervention can be explained by two main factors. The first was nurses’ tendency to ‘ration’ the vouchers, only giving them to the most needy of eligible patients and leaving out those eligible patients whom they felt were financially more comfortable. The second was logistical issues related to the administration of the voucher as vouchers were not always available for patients on their appointed clinic dates, necessitating further visits to the clinics which they were not always able to make. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation identifies some of the most important factors that contributed to the results of this pragmatic trial. It highlights the value of process evaluations as tools to explain the results of randomized trials and emphasizes the importance of implementers as ‘street level bureaucrats’ who may profoundly affect the way an intervention is administered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50689131, registered 21 April 2009. The trial protocol is available at the following web address: http://www.hst.org.za/publications/study-protocol-economic-incentives-improving-clinical-outcomes-patients-tb-south-africa. BioMed Central 2014-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4086265/ /pubmed/24947537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-236 Text en Copyright © 2014 Lutge et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Lutge, Elizabeth
Lewin, Simon
Volmink, Jimmy
Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
title Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
title_full Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
title_short Economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in South Africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
title_sort economic support to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in south africa: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24947537
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-236
work_keys_str_mv AT lutgeelizabeth economicsupporttoimprovetuberculosistreatmentoutcomesinsouthafricaaqualitativeprocessevaluationofaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT lewinsimon economicsupporttoimprovetuberculosistreatmentoutcomesinsouthafricaaqualitativeprocessevaluationofaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT volminkjimmy economicsupporttoimprovetuberculosistreatmentoutcomesinsouthafricaaqualitativeprocessevaluationofaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial