Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31226971›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Wanting to or having to - a qualitative study of experiences and attitudes towards migrant screening for tuberculosis in Norway.

Ingunn Nordstoga, Mona Drage, Tore Wælgaard Steen, Brita Askeland Winje

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Strengthening Tuberculosis Control Among Migrant Workers.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Ingunn NordstogaLHL International Tuberculosis Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Mona DrageLHL International Tuberculosis Foundation, Oslo, Norway.
Tore Wælgaard SteenHealth Agency, City of Oslo, Norway.
Brita Askeland WinjeNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. Brita.Askeland.Winje@fhi.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2858-7248

Funding

Blakstad and Maarschalk Tuberculosis Fund naGuldahl legate naNorwegian Health Association na
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study assesses how tuberculosis (TB) screening is perceived by immigrants in Norway. Screening is mandatory for people arriving from high incidence countries. To attend screening, immigrants have to contact the health system after receiving an invitation by letter. The proportion of non-attenders is not known, and there are no sanctions for not attending. Generally, only persons who test positive receive test results. The study explores users' experiences, attitudes and motivations for attending or not attending TB screening, and perceived barriers and enablers.

methodsWe conducted six focus group discussions and three individual interviews with 34 people from 16 countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data was coded following a general inductive approach: All transcribed text data was closely read through, salient themes were identified and categories were created and labelled. The data was read through several times and the category system was subsequently revised.

resultsMost appreciated the opportunity to be tested for a severe disease and were generally positive towards the healthcare system. At the same time, many were uncomfortable with screening, particularly due to the fear and stigma attached to TB. All experienced practical problems related to language, information, and accessing facilities. Having to ask others for help made them feel dependent and vulnerable. Positive and negative attitudes simultaneously created ambivalence. Many wanted "structuring measures" like sanctions to help attendance. Many said that not receiving results left them feeling anxious.

conclusionsIn order to adapt the system and improve trust and patient uptake, all aspects of the screening should be taken into account. Ambivalence towards screening probably has a negative impact on screening uptake and should be sought reduced. A combination of ambivalence and a wish for "structuring measures" leads the authors to conclude that mandatory screening is a reasonable measure. However, since mandatory screening negatively impacts patient autonomy, and because of fear, stigma and practical problems, the health system should empower users by improving communication and access to services. In addition, it is recommended that negative test results are also communicated to the users.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdultAfricaAsiaEmigrants and ImmigrantsEuropeFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMass ScreeningMotivationNorwayQualitative ResearchTuberculosisAccessibilityAmbivalenceAutonomyHealth communicationHealth literacyImmigrantsScreeningStigmaTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID31226971
PMCPMC6588894

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.