The catastrophic cost of TB care: Understanding costs incurred by individuals undergoing TB care in low-, middle-, and high-income settings – A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eliminating the burden of catastrophic costs experienced by individuals undergoing tuberculosis (TB) treatment is one of the World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy targets. To help inform decisions on TB patient burden and cost-effective TB care, we conducted a systematic review to summarize current evidence around the burden of catastrophic costs incurred by individuals undergoing TB treatment and identified the main drivers of costs to aid in developing mitigation strategies. A literature search was performed in August 2024 using Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Medline targeting studies using WHO, or WHO adapted patient costing questionnaires to measure direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs associated with TB care. Key cost data and patient baseline characteristics were extracted. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021293600). The systematic review included 76 studies; with 70% published over the last 5 years. Total mean costs per person for TB care ranged from $7.13 - $11,329 USD; pre-diagnostic costs ranged from $30.37 - $1,442 USD; and post-diagnostic costs ranged from $33.64 - $5,194 USD. Costs were consistently higher amongst persons with drug resistant TB (DR-TB) and those identified through passive case finding (PCF). Hospitalization and loss of income were the largest drivers of cost. Despite many countries offering free TB treatment, patients still incurred significant catastrophic costs. Our review suggests that active case finding, improving access to DR-TB testing, and adopting social protection interventions may help mitigate the burden of out-of-pocket expenditures incurred by people suffering with TB.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".