Suppr超能文献

三种以社区为基础的针对目标人群的方法在印度三个流行邦农村地区促进新麻风病例早期发现的效果比较。

A comparison of three types of targeted, community-based methods aimed at promoting early detection of new leprosy cases in rural parts of three endemic states in India.

机构信息

Research Domain, The Leprosy Mission Trust India, New Delhi, India.

German Leprosy and Tuberculosis Relief Association (GLRA India), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 14;16(12):e0261219. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261219. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

India achieved elimination of leprosy nationally in 2005, but since then the number of patients with grade 2 disability at diagnosis increased steadily indicating delay in diagnosis. Therefore, there was a need for public health interventions which can increase case finding in their earlier stage. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three such community-based interventions; 1) Enhancement of community awareness on leprosy; 2) Education and motivation of "Index" leprosy cases; and 3) Involvement of Non-Formal Health Practitioners (NFHPs) to promote early detection of new cases of leprosy.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three community-based interventions were implemented between April 2016 and March 2018, embedded within the National Leprosy Eradication Program (NLEP) of India. Interventions were 1) increasing awareness through involvement of Gram Panchayat (local government) in the community regarding early signs of leprosy (Awareness), 2) providing health education and motivating newly diagnosed leprosy patients to bring suspects from their contacts (Index) and 3) training local non-formal health practitioners (NFHP). Each intervention was implemented in a group of ten blocks (sub-division of district) with an additional ten blocks as control (with no intervention). The main outcomes were number of new cases detected and number of grade 2 disability among them. They were obtained from the routine NLEP information system and compared between these interventions. On an average, there was an addition of 1.98 new cases in Awareness blocks, 1.13 in NFHP blocks and 1.16 cases in Index intervention blocks per month per block after adjusting for changes in control blocks during the same period. In terms of ratio, there was a 61%, 40% and 41% increase in case notification in awareness, Index and NFHP intervention, respectively. Overall, the percentage of grade 2 disability across intervention blocks declined.

CONCLUSION

The Awareness intervention appears to be more effective in detection of new cases, compared to Index case motivation and sensitization of NFHPs. However, it is important to stress that while selecting strategies to increase early diagnosis it is important to determine, which is the most appropriate for each context or area and must be decided depending on the local context.

摘要

背景

印度于 2005 年在全国范围内实现了麻风病消除目标,但此后新诊断为 2 级残疾的患者人数稳步增加,表明诊断存在延迟。因此,需要采取公共卫生干预措施,以提高早期发现病例的能力。本研究旨在比较三种基于社区的干预措施的效果:1)提高社区对麻风病的认识;2)对“索引”麻风病患者进行教育和激励;3)让非正规卫生工作者(NFHPs)参与,以促进早期发现新的麻风病病例。

方法/主要发现:2016 年 4 月至 2018 年 3 月,在印度国家麻风病消除规划(NLEP)框架内,实施了三项基于社区的干预措施。这些干预措施是:1)通过让基层政府(印度的地方政府)参与社区,提高人们对麻风病早期症状的认识(提高认识);2)提供健康教育,并激励新诊断的麻风病患者鼓励其接触者中的疑似病例(索引);3)培训当地非正规卫生工作者(NFHPs)。每个干预措施都在一组十个街区(区的细分)中实施,另外十个街区作为对照组(没有干预)。主要结果是新发现病例的数量和其中 2 级残疾的数量。这些数据是从常规 NLEP 信息系统中获得的,并在这些干预措施之间进行了比较。在调整同期对照组变化后,平均而言,提高认识的街区每月每个街区增加 1.98 例新病例,NFHP 街区增加 1.13 例,索引干预街区增加 1.16 例。从比例上看,在提高认识、索引和 NFHP 干预措施中,病例报告的增长率分别为 61%、40%和 41%。总体而言,干预街区的 2 级残疾比例有所下降。

结论

与索引病例激励和 NFHPs 的敏感性相比,提高认识的干预措施似乎更能有效地发现新病例。然而,必须强调的是,在选择增加早期诊断的策略时,重要的是要确定哪种策略最适合每个背景或地区,并根据当地情况做出决定。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4742/8670664/dbde20025432/pone.0261219.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验