Quality of tuberculosis care in India: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While Indian studies have assessed care providers' knowledge and practices, there is no systematic review on the quality of tuberculosis (TB) care. METHODS: We searched multiple sources to identify studies (2000-2014) on providers' knowledge and practices. We used the International Standards for TB Care to benchmark quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 47 studies included, 35 were questionnaire surveys and 12 used chart abstraction. None assessed actual practice using standardised patients. Heterogeneity in the findings precluded meta-analysis. Of 22 studies evaluating provider knowledge about using sputum smears for diagnosis, 10 found that less than half of providers had correct knowledge; 3 of 4 studies assessing self-reported practices by providers found that less than a quarter reported ordering smears for patients with chest symptoms. In 11 of 14 studies that assessed treatment, less than one third of providers knew the standard regimen for drug-susceptible TB. Adherence to standards in practice was generally lower than correct knowledge of those standards. Eleven studies with both public and private providers found higher levels of appropriate knowledge/practice in the public sector. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests suboptimal quality of TB care, particularly in the private sector. Improvement of quality of care should be a priority for India.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".