ArticleBMC health services research2026
Healthcare workers' perceptions of the potential value of whole-genome sequencing for post-exposure management of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) remains a public health challenge, with suboptimal treatment outcomes and challenging management of contacts. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) generates a comprehensive drug resistance profile and transmission inference with a single assay. Limited evidence exists on how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceive the value of WGS, especially for post-exposure management.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study with 22 purposively sampled HCWs (9 doctors, 9 nurses, 4 community health workers) at 11 public health care facilities in the Western Cape, South Africa. Following a standardized explanation of WGS and WGS-guided post-exposure management, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit responses on anticipated acceptability and value of WGS for post-exposure management. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis, combining inductive with deductive approaches informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability themes of intervention coherence, self-efficacy, affective attitude, ethicality, perceived effectiveness and opportunity costs.
resultsHCWs demonstrated good anticipated intervention coherence, even though nurses and community health workers required more explanation on WGS than doctors, and pathways for WGS integration into routine care were not clear. Most HCWs indicated high confidence in anticipated application of WGS-supported recommendations. Limited familiarity with genomic tools was identified as a barrier that requires formal training. Affective attitudes were largely positive, with HCWs expressing optimism about improved clinical decision-making and reduced diagnostic uncertainty following access to WGS. Anticipated effectiveness was high, with HCWs hopeful of faster initiation of appropriate regimens for patients and contacts, reduced patient distress, and decreased medication wastage. Less applicable to post-exposure management was the anticipated benefit that WGS could reduce the burden to the health system and patients by limiting repeat visits and reducing laboratory delays. Ethicality emerged as an important advantage, with HCWs anticipating reduced stigma when contact screening is guided by the detection of hotspots. HCWs did not anticipate opportunity costs.
conclusionHCWs in high-burden settings generally anticipated that WGS would be acceptable to inform post-exposure management strategies. Successful integration of WGS into routine TB care will require tailored training and clear implementation guidance on how to interpret and apply WGS results in clinical and public health practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.