Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25993411›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Is tuberculosis treatment really free in China? A study comparing two areas with different management models.

Sangsang Qiu, Hongqiu Pan, Simin Zhang, Xianzhen Peng, Xianzhi Zheng, Guisheng Xu, Min Wang, Jianming Wang, Hui Lu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Governance of tuberculosis control programme in Nigeria.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sangsang QiuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Hongqiu PanDepartment of Tuberculosis, Third Hospital of Zhenjiang City, Zhenjiang, China.
Simin ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Xianzhen PengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Xianzhi ZhengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Guisheng XuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Min WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jianming WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China; Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China; The Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Nanjing, China.
Hui LuDepartment of Social Medicine and Health Education, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveChina has implemented a free-service policy for tuberculosis. However, patients still have to pay a substantial proportion of their annual income for treatment of this disease. This study describes the economic burden on patients with tuberculosis; identifies related factors by comparing two areas with different management models; and provides policy recommendation for tuberculosis control reform in China.

methodsThere are three tuberculosis management models in China: the tuberculosis dispensary model, specialist model and integrated model. We selected Zhangjiagang (ZJG) and Taixing (TX) as the study sites, which correspond to areas implementing the integrated model and dispensary model, respectively. Patients diagnosed and treated for tuberculosis since January 2010 were recruited as study subjects. A total of 590 patients (316 patients from ZJG and 274 patients from TX) were interviewed with a response rate of 81%. The economic burden attributed to tuberculosis, including direct costs and indirect costs, was estimated and compared between the two study sites. The Mann-Whitney U Test was used to compare the cost differences between the two groups. Potential factors related to the total out-of-pocket costs were analyzed based on a step-by-step multivariate linear regression model after the logarithmic transformation of the costs.

resultsThe average (median, interquartile range) total cost was 18793.33 (9965, 3200-24400) CNY for patients in ZJG, which was significantly higher than for patients in TX (mean: 6598.33, median: 2263, interquartile range: 983-6688) (Z = 10.42, P < 0.001). After excluding expenses covered by health insurance, the average out-of-pocket costs were 14304.4 CNY in ZJG and 5639.2 CNY in TX. Based on the multivariable linear regression analysis, factors related to the total out-of-pocket costs were study site, age, number of clinical visits, residence, diagnosis delay, hospitalization, intake of liver protective drugs and use of the second-line drugs.

conclusionUnder the current "free of diagnosis and treatment" policy, the financial burden remains heavy on tuberculosis patients. Policy makers need to consider appropriate steps to lessen the burden of out-of-pocket costs for tuberculosis patients in China and how best to improve service delivery for poor patients.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAgedChinaCost of IllnessFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID25993411
PMCPMC4439067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.