Dynamic needs and challenges of people with drug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV in South Africa: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence of patient acceptability for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DRTB) care in the context of new treatment regimens and HIV co-infection. We aim to describe experiences of DRTB-HIV care among patients in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. METHODS: In this qualitative study using Bury's framework for chronic illness, we conducted 13 focus groups at a tertiary hospital with 55 patients co-infected with DRTB and HIV (28 women, 27 men) who were receiving new bedaquiline-based treatment for DRTB, concurrent with antiretroviral therapy. Eligible patients were consenting adults (aged >18 years) with confirmed DRTB and HIV who were enrolled into the PRAXIS study within 2 weeks of initiating bedaquiline-based treatment for DRTB. Participants were recruited from the PRAXIS cohort to participate in a focus group based on their time in DRTB treatment: early (2-6 weeks after treatment initiation), middle (2-6 months after discharge or treatment initiation if never hospitalised), and late (>6 months after treatment initiation). Focus groups were carried out in isiZulu language, audio recorded, and translated to English within 4 weeks. Participants were asked about their experiences of DRTB and HIV care and treatment, and qualitative data were coded and thematically analysed. FINDINGS: From March, 2017, to June, 2018, distinctive patient challenges were identified at four critical stages of DRTB care: diagnosis, marked by centralised hospitalisation, renunciation from routine life, systemic stigmatisation and, for patients with longstanding HIV, renewed destabilisation; treatment initiation, marked by side-effects, isolation, and social disconnectedness; discharge, marked by brief respite and resurgent therapeutic and social disruption; and continuity, marked by deepening socioeconomic challenges despite clinical recovery. The periods of diagnosis and discharge into the community were particularly difficult. Treatment information and agency in decision making was a persistent gap. Sources of stigmatisation shifted with movement between the hospital and community. Resilience was built by connecting to peers, self-isolating, financial and material security, and a focus on recovery. INTERPRETATION: People with DRTB and HIV undergo disruptive, life-altering experiences. The lack of information, agency, and social protections in DRTB care and treatment causes wider-reaching challenges for patients compared with HIV. Decentralised, community, peer-support, and differentiated care models for DRTB might be ameliorative and help to maximise the promise of new regimens. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health. TRANSLATION: For the isiZulu translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».