The impact of social protection interventions on treatment and socioeconomic outcomes of tuberculosis-affected people and households in low income, high burden settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death due to infectious disease worldwide. Social protection interventions can benefit TB-affected households. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effectiveness of social protection on TB treatment and socioeconomic outcomes. Methods We identified articles published from January 2012 to July 2024 by searching PubMed (includes MEDLINE), Embase, and Web of Science. We included studies that described at least one social protection intervention and reported on either TB treatment or socioeconomic outcomes for people with TB or TB-affected households. Random-effects meta-analysis was used for our primary outcome of interest, TB treatment success (treatment completion or cure). We performed a meta-regression to evaluate the association of study characteristics with odds of TB treatment success. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This review was registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database (registration number CRD42022382181). Findings Our search generated 47,245 articles. Of the 50 which were eligible for inclusion, 36 reported TB treatment outcomes, 8 reported on socioeconomic, and two studies reported both TB treatment and socioeconomic outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis of 24 articles found that people with TB who received social protection interventions during treatment had 2.23 times the odds of TB treatment success (95% CI 1.82, 2.74, I 2 93.8%). Conclusion Social protection interventions significantly improve odds of TB treatment success. Outcomes and definitions used in our study have the potential to guide further research and implementation of social protection for TB-affected populations. Summary Box What is already known on this topic Several studies have found that social and financial interventions designed to mitigate socioeconomic risk and promote resiliency, termed social protection interventions, have the potential to improve treatment outcomes for tuberculosis (TB), including treatment completion and cure. Additionally, several studies have demonstrated that social protection interventions can improve socioeconomic outcomes among TB-affected households such as averting catastrophic costs and negative financial coping strategies. What this study adds This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that comprehensively evaluates the impact of TB specific and TB sensitive social protection interventions on both TB treatment and socioeconomic outcomes, thereby generating evidence on the ability of these interventions to curb the well-known cycle of TB disease and poverty. Through the use of an extensive list of search terms, expanded and systematic inclusion of outcomes of interest, and a focused definition of social protection interventions, our systematic review included the adequate number of high-quality studies needed to conduct a meta-analysis. Additionally, our systematic review evaluated implementation outcomes described in eligible studies which provides the basis for feasibility of these strategies in programmatic settings. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Our study provides evidence that social protection interventions, when used in conjunction with standard biomedical treatment, have the potential to significantly improve TB treatment outcomes. This study fills an essential gap in existing synthesized evidence of the impact of social protection interventions on TB, socioeconomic, and implementation outcomes. Our findings also highlight the need for standardized definitions of social protection, as well as uniform reporting procedures, to better help evaluate the impact of social protection interventions for TB-affected individuals and households. Addressing these gaps provides scientific basis for meeting the commitments articulated in the 2023 United Nations General Assembly high level meeting for TB which calls for social protection for all individuals with TB.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,025 | 0,049 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».