Cost of tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment from the patient perspective in Lusaka, Zambia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: Urban primary health centres in Lusaka, Zambia. OBJECTIVES: 1) To estimate patient costs for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and treatment and 2) to identify determinants of patient costs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 103 adult TB patients who had been on treatment for 1-3 months was conducted using a standardised questionnaire. Direct and indirect costs were estimated, converted into US$ and categorised into two time periods: 'pre-diagnosis/care-seeking' and 'post-diagnosis/treatment'. Determinants of patient costs were analysed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The median total patient costs for diagnosis and 2 months of treatment was $24.78 (interquartile range 13.56-40.30) per patient--equivalent to 47.8% of patients' median monthly income. Sex, patient delays in seeking care and method of treatment supervision were significant predictors of total patient costs. The total direct costs as a proportion of income were higher for women than men (P < 0.001). Treatment costs incurred by patients on the clinic-based directly observed treatment strategy were more than three times greater than those incurred by patients on the self-administered treatment strategy (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinic-based treatment supervision posed a significant economic burden on patients. The creation or strengthening of community-based treatment supervision programmes would have the greatest potential impact on reducing patients' TB-related costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".