Prevalence, acceptability, and cost of routine screening for pulmonary tuberculosis among pregnant women in Cotonou, Benin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the yield, cost, feasibility, and acceptability of routine tuberculosis (TB) screening of pregnant women in Cotonou, Benin. DESIGN: Mixed-methods, cross-sectional study with a cost assessment. SETTING: Eight participating health facilities in Cotonou, Benin. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive pregnant women presenting for antenatal care at any participating site who were not in labor or currently being treated for TB from April 2017 to April 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Screening for the presence of TB symptoms by midwives and Xpert MTB/RIF for those with cough for at least two weeks. Semi-structured interviews with 14 midwives and 16 pregnant women about experiences with TB screening. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of pregnant women with cough of at least two weeks and/or microbiologically confirmed TB. The cost per pregnant woman screened and per TB case diagnosed in 2019 USD from the health system perspective. RESULTS: Out of 4,070 pregnant women enrolled in the study, 94 (2.3%) had a cough for at least two weeks at the time of screening. The average (standard deviation) age of symptomatic women was 26 ± 5 years and 5 (5.3%) had HIV. Among the 94 symptomatic women, 2 (2.3%) had microbiologically confirmed TB for a TB prevalence of 49 per 100,000 (95% CI: 6 to 177 per 100,000) among pregnant women enrolled in the study. The average cost to screen one pregnant woman for TB was $1.12 USD and the cost per TB case diagnosed was $2271 USD. Thematic analysis suggested knowledge of TB complications in pregnancy was low, but that routine TB screening was acceptable to both midwives and pregnant women. CONCLUSION: Enhanced screening for TB among pregnant women is feasible, acceptable, and inexpensive per woman screened, however in this setting has suboptimal yield even if it can contribute to enhance TB case finding.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".