ArticleAIMS public health2019
Consensual improvement actions for the Tuberculosis Control Programme in Pernambuco state, Brazil: an e-Delphi study.
Article in AIMS public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTuberculosis (TB) remains a major public health problem, particularly in low and middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to consensualise improvement actions for the Tuberculosis Control Programme of the Pernambuco state (SPTC), Brazil.
methodsFirstly, a preliminary workshop was conducted with experts (n = 8), including key stakeholders and health professionals, to select structure and process indicators pertaining to the tuberculosis control programme. Then, an e-Delphi was carried out with a purposive sample of 11 local TB experts. The first-round questionnaire was comprised of 19 open-ended questions on possible improvement actions, based on programme indicators obtained in the previous stage. In the second-round experts rated each action for relevance and feasibility, using a four-point scale. In the last round the participants rated the actions again, in the light of group's answers. We used published criteria to define consensus at the outset of the study. KEY
findingsEighty-nine improvement actions achieved a high degree of consensus in both feasibility and relevance in round three. Eighty-six actions were grouped under 19 structure and process indicators, while three were consideredcross-sectional in scope (i.e. related to more than one indicator). Ten out of the 86 actions obtained at least 70% of ratings on the highest score of the scale both for relevance and feasibility. These included: "Request and availability of sputum pots can be made by any health professional in the health unit".
conclusionsThe wide array of actions obtained in this Delphi represent a resource from which local SPTC services can select the actions most suitable for each context. The ten most relevant and feasible actions represent a particularly useful starting point to streamline change and potentially improve programme indicators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.