ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Patient mobility and travel distance to receive drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, and their associations with loss to follow-up in Guizhou Province, China.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDrug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) remains a public health crisis, with loss to follow-up (LTFU) being a crucial factor influencing its management. To inform effective TB control strategies, this study aimed to assess patient mobility, travel distances, and their associations with LTFU among DR-TB patients in Guizhou Province, China.
methodsData were collected from a national tuberculosis surveillance system from 2019 to 2021. Patients were classified as non-movers (treated at a hospital within the same prefecture) or movers (treated at a hospital in a different prefecture). Two travel distances were measured using AutoNavi: Distance 1 (home to treatment hospital) and Distance 2 (home to local hospital). The difference between these distances was categorized as follows: (1) Equal distance, (2) Long-distance travel (Distance 1 > Distance 2), and (3) Short-distance travel (Distance 1 < Distance 2). Three logistic regression models assessed associations between exposures (movers vs. non-movers in Model 1, long vs. short Distance 1 in Model 2, long-distance travel vs. equal distance in Model 3) and LTFU.
resultsGuizhou Province has nine prefectures, each with a designated DR-TB hospital. Of the 936 patients studied, 703 (75.1%) were from seven less developed prefectures, and 427 (60.7%) sought treatment in two developed prefectures. The two hospitals provided care for 660 (70.5%) patients (Guiyang: 547 patients, 58.4%; Zunyi: 113 patients, 12.1%). Among movers, 72.2% lived more than 100 km away. Overall, 28.5% of patients were LTFU. Adjusted analysis showed that movers had a higher LTFU risk [aOR = 1.49; 95% CI (1.04, 2.13) in Model 1], especially those with over 145 km Distance 1 [aOR = 1.74; 95% CI (1.11, 2.75) in Model 2] and long-distance travel [aOR = 1.45; 95% CI (1.01, 2.10) in Model 3].
conclusionDR-TB patients often travel from less developed prefectures to two major cities in Guizhou for better care. Patient mobility and travel burdens increase the risk of LTFU. Our study emphasizes the need to strengthen hospital infrastructure, improve DR-TB diagnosis and treatment in underdeveloped areas, and establish effective medication management and follow-up systems across all designated hospitals in the province to reduce DR-TB transmission and LTFU rates.
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.