Cross-sectional study of preventive treatment for students with latent tuberculosis infection in Shanghai, China.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Xiao Xiao, Zhipeng Li, Haoyue Zhang, Xin Xin, Lili Chen, Jing Chen, Xin Shen, Xin Chen
{"title":"Cross-sectional study of preventive treatment for students with latent tuberculosis infection in Shanghai, China.","authors":"Xiao Xiao, Zhipeng Li, Haoyue Zhang, Xin Xin, Lili Chen, Jing Chen, Xin Shen, Xin Chen","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) has been initiated systematically in Shanghai supported by a public health project. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of TPT, identify the factors related to its refusal, and find an optimal way to promote TPT among student tuberculosis (TB) contacts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened contacts of the TB index case from a TB outbreak on campus. A two-step approach of first conducting a lecture of TB health literacy, followed by one-on-one TPT consultations was used to mobilise TPT among students with latent TB infection (LTBI). A semistructured questionnaire was designed between the lecture and the one-on-one TPT consultations, covering general demographic information, awareness of core TB knowledge and willingness to accept TPT, along with the reasons for refusal. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for refusing TPT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 52 contacts were identified with LTBI. After the lecture on TB health literacy, their scores on the core TB knowledge was 14.0±2.3. Students had a poor awareness rate of TB knowledge in the part of TB treatment and policy (70.2%) and <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> infection preventive measures and LTBI (67.3%) compared with the average rate (84.3%). The acceptance rate of TPT reached 42.3% at the end of the two-step promotion. The main reasons for refusing TPT included: (1) the duration for TPT was too long and follow-up management was too cumbersome; (2) the confidence in their own immunity and belief in their low risk of TB and (3) the fear of side effects of TPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The two-step approach of first conducting a lecture of TB health literacy, followed by one-on-one TPT consultations, is effective for mobilising TPT. To further implement TPT, we recommend making the scientific popularisation for LTBI in a more easy-to-understand way and optimising the management of TPT.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12067769/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002799","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) has been initiated systematically in Shanghai supported by a public health project. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of TPT, identify the factors related to its refusal, and find an optimal way to promote TPT among student tuberculosis (TB) contacts.

Methods: We screened contacts of the TB index case from a TB outbreak on campus. A two-step approach of first conducting a lecture of TB health literacy, followed by one-on-one TPT consultations was used to mobilise TPT among students with latent TB infection (LTBI). A semistructured questionnaire was designed between the lecture and the one-on-one TPT consultations, covering general demographic information, awareness of core TB knowledge and willingness to accept TPT, along with the reasons for refusal. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for refusing TPT.

Results: A total of 52 contacts were identified with LTBI. After the lecture on TB health literacy, their scores on the core TB knowledge was 14.0±2.3. Students had a poor awareness rate of TB knowledge in the part of TB treatment and policy (70.2%) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection preventive measures and LTBI (67.3%) compared with the average rate (84.3%). The acceptance rate of TPT reached 42.3% at the end of the two-step promotion. The main reasons for refusing TPT included: (1) the duration for TPT was too long and follow-up management was too cumbersome; (2) the confidence in their own immunity and belief in their low risk of TB and (3) the fear of side effects of TPT.

Conclusions: The two-step approach of first conducting a lecture of TB health literacy, followed by one-on-one TPT consultations, is effective for mobilising TPT. To further implement TPT, we recommend making the scientific popularisation for LTBI in a more easy-to-understand way and optimising the management of TPT.

上海市学生潜伏性结核感染预防治疗的横断面研究。
前言:在公共卫生项目的支持下,结核病预防治疗(TPT)已在上海系统开展。本研究旨在评估TPT的接受程度,确定拒绝TPT的相关因素,并寻找在学生结核病接触者中推广TPT的最佳途径。方法:对一起校园结核暴发病例的接触者进行筛查。采用两步方法,首先开展结核病卫生知识讲座,然后进行一对一的结核病预防治疗咨询,以动员潜伏性结核病感染(LTBI)学生接受结核病预防治疗。在讲座和一对一TPT咨询之间设计了一份半结构化问卷,涵盖一般人口统计信息、对结核病核心知识的认识和接受TPT的意愿,以及拒绝的原因。采用Logistic回归分析确定拒绝TPT的危险因素。结果:共有52名接触者被鉴定为LTBI。结核病健康素养讲座结束后,患者结核病核心知识得分为14.0±2.3分。与平均水平(84.3%)相比,学生对结核病治疗和政策、结核分枝杆菌感染预防措施和LTBI的结核病知识知晓率(67.3%)较低。两步推广结束时,TPT的合格率达到42.3%。拒绝接受TPT治疗的主要原因有:(1)TPT治疗时间过长,随访管理过于繁琐;(2)对自身免疫力的信心和对自身低结核病风险的信念;(3)对TPT副作用的恐惧。结论:首先开展结核病卫生知识讲座,然后进行一对一的TPT咨询的两步方法对于动员TPT是有效的。为了进一步落实TPT,我们建议对LTBI进行更通俗易懂的科学普及,并优化TPT的管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信