Situating trade-offs: Stakeholder perspectives on overtreatment versus missed diagnosis in transition to Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra in Kenya and Swaziland.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
04
10
2019
accepted:
20
01
2020
entrez:
20
2
2020
pubmed:
20
2
2020
medline:
1
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Implementing new diagnostics in public health programs can involve difficult trade-off decisions between individual patient benefits and public health considerations. Such decision-making processes are often not documented and may not include engagement of affected communities. This paper examines the perspectives of stakeholders on the trade-off between over-treatment and missed diagnosis captured during decision-making workshops on the transition from use of Xpert MTB/RIF to diagnose tuberculosis to Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra in Kenya and Swaziland. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra has an overall increase in sensitivity but a decrease in specificity when compared to its predecessor. We conducted a qualitative study using four focus group discussions with a total of 47 participants and non-participant observation. The analysis reveals how participants deemed Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra's reduced specificity vis-à-vis its increased sensitivity to be an acceptable trade-off. The way participants assessed this trade-off was shaped by their experiences with the general uncertainty of all diagnostic tests, alternative testing options, historical evolution of diagnostic practices, epidemiological factors and resource constraints. In assessing the trade-off community and individual benefit and harm was frequently discussed together. Qualitative research on stakeholder engagement activities for diagnostic development and implementation can identify everyday experiences and situate assessments and perspectives of key stakeholders and as such aid in decision-making, improving implementation as well as patient outcomes. Further research is needed on the intended and unintended consequences of such engagement activities, how findings are being incorporated by decision-makers, and the impact on programmatic implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32074142
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228669
pii: PONE-D-19-27592
pmc: PMC7029953
doi:
Substances chimiques
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0228669Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FIND collaborated with Cepheid and Rutgers to develop the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra cartridge. FIND also led the evaluation studies to get the cartridge endorsed by WHO thus increasing acceptability of the cartridges in the countries of intended use. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Public Health Action. 2015 Jun 21;5(2):140-6
pubmed: 26400386
PLoS Med. 2017 Dec 14;14(12):e1002472
pubmed: 29240766
Genet Med. 2015 Dec;17(12):949-57
pubmed: 25764215
Emerg Infect Dis. 2012 Jan;18(1):29-37
pubmed: 22260950
Lancet Glob Health. 2013 Aug;1(2):e97-e104
pubmed: 25104164
Eur Respir J. 2016 Aug;48(2):516-25
pubmed: 27418550
mBio. 2017 Aug 29;8(4):
pubmed: 28851844
PLoS Med. 2011 Jul;8(7):e1001067
pubmed: 21818180
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):76-84
pubmed: 29198911
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):68-75
pubmed: 28919338
J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2013 Sep;3(3):119-21
pubmed: 23932053
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Mar;64(3):231-9
pubmed: 21194890
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2012 Jun;10(6):631-5
pubmed: 22734954