Tuberculosis Contact Screening and Isoniazid Preventive Therapy Among Children Under 5 in the Mbeya and Songwe Regions, Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends contact screening and initiation of isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) for children under 5 years of age exposed to a sputum smear-positive (SS+) tuberculosis (TB) source case. We conducted this study in order to assess implementation of these recommendations in southwestern Tanzania. METHODS: We conducted this cross-sectional study from June to August 2015 in 12 selected health facilities in the Mbeya and Songwe regions of Tanzania. Adult SS+ pulmonary TB patients living in the same household as children under 5 were enrolled. Structured questionnaires were used to obtain sociodemographic information and details about screening and intervention activity related to contact children under 5. Data were analysed using Stata version 11.0. RESULTS: We enrolled 257 index cases, who collectively had 433 contact children under 5. The median age of the index cases was 34 years (interquartile range 28 to 41) and 52.9% were male. Out of 433 contacts, 31 (7.2%) were screened for TB, of whom 7 (22.6%) were treated for presumptive TB. Among those screened, 24 were not diagnosed with TB, of whom only 8 (33.3%) received IPT. CONCLUSION: Low uptake of TB contact screening and IPT administration among eligible children under 5 was observed in this study. Health-care workers should be sensitized to screening of household contacts of adults with SS+ TB and initiate IPT in those who are eligible.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".