Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Effectiveness and costeffectiveness of screening immigrants schemes for tuberculosis (TB) on arrival from high TB endemic countries to low TB prevalent countries
Abstract
Background:
Immigrants to developed countries are a major source of TB. Therefore amongst strategies adopted for TB control in developed countries include; 1) Screening immigrants at ports of entry referred to as “Port of Arrival Screening” (PoA) and 2) Passive screening (PS) for TB which means screening immigrants through general practices, hospitals, chest-clinics and emergency departments. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these strategies is not consistent.
Objective:
Evaluate efficiency of active PoA TB screening for immigrants from TB endemic-regions compared with Passive Screening of immigrant-populations from TB endemic-regions.
Methods:
Major electronic-databases and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Experts of immigrants’ TB screening were contacted for additional studies published or unpublished.
Systematic search of major databases identified only retrospective cohort-studies. Their qualities were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodological checklist for comparative cohort-studies.
Results:
Systematic electronic searches identified 1443 citations. Of these 74 studies were retrieved for evaluation against the review’s inclusion/exclusion criteria (see study inclusion/exclusion criteria). Four studies met the inclusion criteria (figure 2) which were low in the evidence hierarchy of primary effectiveness studies and had heterogeneities between them. Thus descriptive data-synthesis was performed.
Proportionately PoA screening had the lowest percentage of receipt of tuberculin skin test (TST) and the highest percentage of non-attendance for TST reading (table 2). Active PoA screening reduced infectiousness by 34% compared to 30% by passive screening and new entrants screened at PoA were 80% less likely to be hospitalised Odds ratio (OR) = 0.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 – 0.2).
Economic analysis:
One cost effectiveness analysis was found that compared the costs of; active PoA screening, general practice screening and homeless screening groups. The cost of detecting a case of TB were; £1.26, £13.17and £96.36 for PS, homeless screening and active PoA screening respectively. The cost of preventing a case of TB were; £6.32, £23.00 and £10.00 for PS, homeless screening and PoA screening respectively, showing there is little difference between the different strategies.
Conclussion:
Active PoA screening is worth doing with significant benefits including early identification of risk groups with possible timely treatment/chemoprophylaxis intervention, prevention of transmission by significantly reducing infectiousness with subsequent avoidance of hospitalisation in active PoA screening group.
Immigrants to developed countries are a major source of TB. Therefore amongst strategies adopted for TB control in developed countries include; 1) Screening immigrants at ports of entry referred to as “Port of Arrival Screening” (PoA) and 2) Passive screening (PS) for TB which means screening immigrants through general practices, hospitals, chest-clinics and emergency departments. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these strategies is not consistent.
Objective:
Evaluate efficiency of active PoA TB screening for immigrants from TB endemic-regions compared with Passive Screening of immigrant-populations from TB endemic-regions.
Methods:
Major electronic-databases and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Experts of immigrants’ TB screening were contacted for additional studies published or unpublished.
Systematic search of major databases identified only retrospective cohort-studies. Their qualities were assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodological checklist for comparative cohort-studies.
Results:
Systematic electronic searches identified 1443 citations. Of these 74 studies were retrieved for evaluation against the review’s inclusion/exclusion criteria (see study inclusion/exclusion criteria). Four studies met the inclusion criteria (figure 2) which were low in the evidence hierarchy of primary effectiveness studies and had heterogeneities between them. Thus descriptive data-synthesis was performed.
Proportionately PoA screening had the lowest percentage of receipt of tuberculin skin test (TST) and the highest percentage of non-attendance for TST reading (table 2). Active PoA screening reduced infectiousness by 34% compared to 30% by passive screening and new entrants screened at PoA were 80% less likely to be hospitalised Odds ratio (OR) = 0.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 – 0.2).
Economic analysis:
One cost effectiveness analysis was found that compared the costs of; active PoA screening, general practice screening and homeless screening groups. The cost of detecting a case of TB were; £1.26, £13.17and £96.36 for PS, homeless screening and active PoA screening respectively. The cost of preventing a case of TB were; £6.32, £23.00 and £10.00 for PS, homeless screening and PoA screening respectively, showing there is little difference between the different strategies.
Conclussion:
Active PoA screening is worth doing with significant benefits including early identification of risk groups with possible timely treatment/chemoprophylaxis intervention, prevention of transmission by significantly reducing infectiousness with subsequent avoidance of hospitalisation in active PoA screening group.
