Catastrophic costs due to tuberculosis in South India: comparison between active and passive case finding. (10th December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Muniyandi, Malaisamy; Thomas, Beena Elizabeth; Karikalan, Nagarajan; Kannan, Thiruvengadam; Rajendran, Krishnan; Dolla, Chandra Kumar; Saravanan, Balakrishnan; Tholkappian, Ayyakannu Sivaprakasham; Tripathy, Srikanth Prasad; Swaminathan, Soumya
• Is Part Of: Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Volume 114:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 185
• Page End: 192
• Publication Date: 2019-12-10
• Subjects: active case finding -- catastrophic costs due to TB -- direct costs -- indirect costs -- medical costs -- non-medical costs -- out-of-pocket payment for TB care -- passive case finding -- poverty -- tuberculosis; Tropical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.9883
• DOI: 10.1093/trstmh/trz127
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0035-9203

Abstract

Abstract: Background: To measure and compare economic burden at the household level for tuberculosis (TB) patients who were detected through active case finding (ACF) and passive case finding (PCF) in rural areas. Methods: This study was conducted in the Thiruvallur district from October 2016 to March 2018. TB patients diagnosed through ACF were included in this study. For the comparison, patients diagnosed through ACF were recruited in the ratio of 1:2 from the same study area during the same period. Costs between the groups were compared and a multiple regression model was used to identify factors associated with catastrophic costs due to TB. Results: Of the 336 individuals, 110 were diagnosed through ACF and 226 through PCF. A total of 29% of patients diagnosed through PCF and 9% of patients diagnosed through ACF experienced catastrophic costs due to TB. The multiple logistic model shows that catastrophic costs due to TB had a significant association with higher income status (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.91 [confidence interval {CI} 2.39 to 10.08]; p<0.001), alcohol use (aOR 2.78 [CI 1.33 to 5.81]; p=0.007), private as a first point of care (aOR 3.91 [CI 2.01 to 7.60]; p<0.001) and PCF (aOR 3.68 [CI 1.62 to 8.33]; p=0.002). Conclusions: Findings highlight that ACF significantly averted catastrophic costs due to TB among patients. ACF as a strategy could ensure financial protection of TB patients and limit their risk of poverty.