Published in:
01-12-2020 | Tuberculosis | Research article
Coverage of tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus screening among household contacts of tuberculosis patients: a household-based cross-sectional survey from Southern Thailand
Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2020
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
The comorbid presence of tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus has become an increasingly important public health threat to the prevention and control of both diseases. Thus, household contact investigation may serve a dual purpose of screening for both tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus among household contacts. We therefore aimed to evaluate the coverage of screening for tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus among household contacts of tuberculosis index cases and to determine predictors of tuberculosis screening.
Methods
A household-based survey was conducted in February 2019 in Muang district of Phatthalung Province, Thailand where 95 index tuberculosis patients were newly diagnosed with pulmonary or pleural tuberculosis between October 2017 and September 2018. Household contacts of the index patients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire to ascertain their past-year history of tuberculosis screening and, if appropriate, diabetes mellitus screening. For children, the household head or an adult household member was interviewed as a proxy. Coverage of tuberculosis screening at the household level was regarded as households having all contacts screened for tuberculosis. Logistic regression and mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of tuberculosis screening at the household and individual levels, respectively, with the strengths of association presented as adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
Of 61 responding households (64%), complete coverage of tuberculosis screening at the household level was 34.4% and among the 174 household contacts was 46.6%. About 20% of contacts did not receive any recommendation for tuberculosis screening. Households were more likely to have all members screened for tuberculosis if they were advised to be screened by a healthcare professional rather than someone else. At the individual level, contacts aged ≥35 years (AOR: 30.6, 95% CI: 2.0–466.0), being an employee (AOR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0–0.8) and those who had lived more than 5 years in the same household (AOR: 0.1, 95% CI: 0.0–0.8) were independent predictors for tuberculosis screening. Coverage of diabetes mellitus screening was 80.6% with lack of awareness being the main reason for not being screened.
Conclusions
Compared to diabetes screening, the coverage of tuberculosis screening was low. A better strategy to improve coverage of tuberculosis contact screening is needed.