Reminder systems and late patient tracers in the diagnosis and management of tuberculosis

Qin Liu; Katharine Abba; Marissa M Alejandria; Vincent M Balanag; Regina P Berba; Mary Ann D Lansang

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006594.pub2

Sistemas de recordatorio e intervenciones para rescatar pacientes inasistentes para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la tuberculosis

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Ir a:

estudios excluidos
otras referencias

Cheng TL, Ottolini MC, Baumhaft K, Brasseux C, Wolf MD, Scheidt PC. Strategies to increase adherence with tuberculin test reading in a high‐risk population. Pediatrics 1997;100(2):210‐3.

Krishnaswami KV, Somasundaram PR, Tripathy SP, Vaidyanathan B, Radhakrishna S, Fox WA. Randomised study of two policies for managing default in out‐patients collecting supplies of drugs for pulmonary tuberculosis in a large city in South India. Tubercle 1981;62(2):103‐12.

Mohan A, Nassir H, Niazi A. Does routine home visiting improve the return rate and outcome of DOTS patients who delay treatment?. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2003;9(4):702‐8.

Paramasivan R, Parthasarathy RT, Rajasekaran S. Short course chemotherapy: A controlled study of indirect defaulter retrieval method. Indian Journal of Tuberculosis 1993;40(4):185‐90.

Google Scholar

Roberts MC. Wurtele SK. Leeper JD. Experiments to increase return in a medical screening drive: two futile attempts to apply theory to practice. Social Science & Medicine 1983;17(11):741‐6.

Sanmarti LS, Megias JA, Gomez MN, Soler JC, Alcala EN, Sune MR, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of health education on the compliance with antituberculosis chemoprophylaxis in school children. A randomized clinical trial. Tubercle and Lung Disease 1993;74(1):28‐31.

Tanke ED, Leirer VO. Automated telephone reminders in tuberculosis care. Medical Care 1994;32(4):380‐89.

See Tanke 1994.

Tanke ED, Martinez CM, Leirer VO. Use of automated reminders for tuberculin skin test return. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1997;13(3):189‐92.

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
otras referencias

Al‐Hajjaj MS, Al‐Khatim IM. High rate of non‐compliance with anti‐tuberculosis treatment despite a retrieval system: a call for implementation of directly observed therapy in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2000;4(4):345‐9.

Google Scholar

Alcaide Megías J, Altet Gómez MN, Canela Soler J, Serra Majen L, Garrido Morales P, Navas Alcalá E, et al. Influence of health education on compliance with antituberculous chemoprophylaxis in children: a community trial [Influencia de la educaci¨®n sanitaria en el cumplimiento de la quimioprofilaxis antituberculosa en ninos: ensayo comunitario]. Revista Clínica Española 1990;187(2):89‐93.

Bordley WC, Margolis PA, Stuart J, Lannon C, Keyes L. Improving preventive service delivery through office systems. Pediatrics 2001;108(3):41‐8.

Gordillo AGC, Gordillo AJF, Jimenez DJ.E. Educational strategy for improving patient compliance with the tuberculosis treatment regimen in Chiapas, Mexico [Estrategia educativa para incrementar el cumplimiento del regimen antituberculoso en Chiapas, Mexico]. Pan American Journal of Public Health 2003;14(6):402‐8.

Hovell MF, Sipan CL, Blumberg EJ, Hofstetter CR, Slymen D, Friedman L, et al. Increasing Latino adolescents' adherence to treatment for latent tuberculosis infection: a controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health 2003;93(11):1871‐7.

Jin BW, Kim SC, Mori T, Shimao T. The impact of intensified supervisory activities on tuberculosis treatment. Tubercle and Lung Disease 1993;74(4):267‐72.

Krishna S, Balas EA, Boren SA, Maglaveras N. Patient acceptance of educational voice messages: a review of controlled clinical studies. Methods of Information in Medicine 2002;41(5):360‐9.

Lin RL, Lin FJ, Wu CL, Peng MJ, Chen PJ, Kuo HT. Effect of a hospital‐based case management approach on treatment outcome of patients with tuberculosis. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 2006;105(8):636‐44.

Morisky DE, Malotte CK, Choi P, Davidson P, Rigler S, Sugland B, et al. A patient education program to improve adherence rates with antituberculosis drug regimens. Health Education Quarterly 1990;17(3):253‐67.

Morisky DE, Malotte CK, Ebin V, Davidson P, Cabrera D, Trout PT, et al. Behavioral interventions for the control of tuberculosis among adolescents. Public Health Reports 2001;116(6):568‐74.

Nyamathi A. Stein JA. Schumann A, Tyler D. Latent variable assessment of outcomes in a nurse‐managed intervention to increase latent tuberculosis treatment completion in homeless adults. Health Psychology 2007;26(1):68‐76.

Thiam S, LeFevre AM, Hane F, Ndiaye A, Ba F, Fielding KL, et al. Effectiveness of a strategy to improve adherence to tuberculosis treatment in a resource‐poor setting: a cluster randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007;297(4):380‐6.

Referencias adicionales

Ir a:

estudios incluidos
estudios excluidos

Bosch‐Capblanch X, Abba K, Prictor M, Garner P. Contracts between patients and healthcare practitioners for improving patients' adherence to treatment, prevention and health promotion activities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004808.pub3]

Goble M, Iseman MD, Madsen LA. Treatment of 171 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis resistant to isoniazid and rifampin. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;328(8):527‐32.

Green D. ICT‐enabled development case studies series: The compliance service uses SMS technology for TB treatment. www.bridges.org/case_studies/137 2003 (accessed 1 September 2006).

Haynes RB, Ackloo E, Sahota N, McDonald HP, Yao X. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000011.pub3]

Jagota P, Sreenivas TR, Parimala N. Improving treatment compliance by observing difference in treatment irregularity. Indian Journal of Tuberculosis 1996;43:75‐80.

Google Scholar

Johansson E, Long NH, Diwan VK, Winkvist A. Attitudes to compliance with tuberculosis treatment among women and men in Vietnam. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 1999;3(10):862‐8.

Google Scholar

Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323(7303):42‐6.

Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.0 (updated February 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

M'Imunya MJ, Volmink J. Education and counselling for promoting adherence to the treatment of active tuberculosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006591]

Mitchison DA. How drug resistance emerges as a result of poor compliance during short course chemotherapy for tuberculosis. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 1998;2(1):10‐5.

Google Scholar

O'Boyle SJ, Power JJ, Ibrahim MY, Watson JP. Factors affecting patient compliance with anti‐tuberculosis chemotherapy using the directly observed treatment, short‐course strategy (DOTS). International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2002;6(4):307‐12.

Google Scholar

Ormerod LP, Prescott RJ. Inter‐relations between relapses, drug regimens and compliance with treatment in tuberculosis. Respiratory Medicine 1991;85(3):239‐42.

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.

Thilakavathi S, Fredrick JS, Fredrick KG, Parthasarathy R, Santha T. High coverage for long term follow‐up of patients with spinal tuberculosis. Indian Journal of Tuberculosis 1993;40(2):91‐4.

Google Scholar

Jacobson Vann JC, Szilagyi P. Patient reminder and recall systems to improve immunization rates. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003941.pub2]

Volmink J, Garner P. Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003343.pub3]

Weis SE, Slocum PC, Blais FX, King B, Nunn M, Matney GB, et al. The effect of directly observed therapy on the rates of drug resistance and relapse in tuberculosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;330(17):1179‐84.

WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme. Treatment of tuberculosis: guidelines for national programmes [WHO/CDS/TB/2003.313]. 3rd Edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003.

World Health Organization. Adherence to long term therapies: evidence for action. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2003.

World Health Organization, Communicable Diseases Cluster. Global tuberculosis control: surveillance, planning, financing : WHO report 2006 [WHO/HTM/TB/2006.362]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2006.

World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis control: surveillance, planning, financing. WHO Report 2007. WHO/HTM/TB/2007.376. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.

WHO/IUATLD Global Project on Anti‐tuberculosis Drug Resistance Surveillance 2002?2007. Anti‐tuberculosis drug resistance in the world. Report No. 4. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2008.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios excluidos

Cheng 1997

Methods	Quasi‐randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: randomized by day of the week Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 627/627 (100%) Protection against contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 627 randomized Inclusion criteria: consecutive children ages 1 to 12 years due for a tuberculosis test in an urban children's hospital outpatient department; 1 child per family enrolled Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Intervention of interest 1. Reminder phone call (reminders included a written information sheet with the times to return; skin tests circled in permanent marker and date of return stamped on mother's and child's hands) Other interventions 2. Positive reinforcement group (transportation tokens and toy on return) 3. Negative reinforcement group (asked to leave school forms until they returned for test reading and were told that the test would be repeated if not read on time) 4. Parents trained to read the Mantoux tuberculosis test for induration or no induration, and a nurse home visit was scheduled to verify results Control 5. Routine verbal and written instructions All families received education regarding the importance of skin testing for tuberculosis and the need for follow up to read the results. Instructions were given to return to the clinic in 48 to 72 hours
Outcomes	Non‐adherence to return visit for Mantoux test reading
Notes	Location: USA Baseline data: comparable

Krishnaswami 1981

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: unclear Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 150/170 (89%); 20 participants excluded from main analysis because of death (8), lost to follow up (6), chemotherapy change (3), or transfer to more accessible clinics (3) Protection against contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 170 randomized; 150 analysed Inclusion criteria: patients with symptoms reporting at the Institute of Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases in Madras; with radiographic evidence of tuberculosis but negative smears; aged ≥12 years; prescribed national tuberculosis programme recommended regimen; living within a radius of about 5 km from the clinic; bona fide residents of Madras city and regarded as stable (expected to remain in the city for at least 1 year) Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Intervention 1. In the event of default, a health visitor went to the participant's home on the 4^th day to persuade the patient to attend the clinic. If necessary, further visits were made on the 11^th day, and at 1 and 2 months. At one of the latter 2 visits, a doctor accompanied the health visitor if the latter had met the patient at an early visit but had failed to persuade the patient to attend Control 2. In the event of default, a reminder letter in Tamil (the local language) asking the patient to attend the clinic was posted to the home address on the evening of the 4^th day. If the patient still failed to attend, a health visitor went to the home on the 11^th day to see the patient personally and persuade him/her to attend
Outcomes	1. Failure to retrieve the defaulters with the first action for the first episode of default 2. Failure to retrieve the defaulters with the first action for all episodes of default 3. Mean number of drug collections for one year 4. Patients who discontinued treatment prematurely 5. Number of episodes of default
Notes	Location: South India Baseline data: comparable Default: defined by the trial authors as failure of the patient to collect his/her supply of drugs on the due date or within the next 3 days

Mohan 2003

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: random‐numbers table Allocation concealment: sequentially numbered and sealed opaque envelopes Blinding of outcome assessors: yes Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 480/480 (100%) Protection against contamination: done
Participants	Number: 480 randomized Inclusion criteria: new smear‐positive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB); never been treated previously; delayed coming to collect drugs at the health centre for at least 3 days after scheduled appointment; identified from official patient record cards Exclusion criteria: re‐treatment patients
Interventions	Intervention 1. Home visit by a local female volunteer from a local nongovernmental organization who was trained to motivate patient to attend health centre daily and to give health education (co‐intervention) for the patient and his/her family Control 2. No home visit
Outcomes	1. Patient who did not complete treatment 2. Treatment interrupted for ≥ 2 consecutive months 3. Treatment failure: patient who is sputum positive at 5 months or later during treatment 4. Death 5. Sputum smear positive follow up
Notes	Location: Iraq Baseline data: not reported Default: defined by the author as treatment interrupted for ≥ 2 consecutive months

Paramasivan 1993

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: random‐numbers table Allocation concealment: centralized randomization by a third party Blinding of outcome assessors: no Blinding of providers and participants: no Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 200/200 (100%) Protection against contamination: done
Participants	Number: 200 randomized Inclusion criteria: newly diagnosed adult pulmonary tuberculosis patients; sputum positive for acid‐fast bacilli (AFB); no treatment or < 15 days previous treatment; not in moribund condition or suffering from disorders like diabetes, cardiac failure, or renal failure; willing to stay in the hospital for the initial 1‐month intensive phase of treatment Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Intervention 1. First indirect defaulter action was posting of a reminder letter to the correct home address on the 4^th day of the due date. The second defaulter action became due only when the first action failed to retrieve the patient, and it would be posted on the 8^th day after the first action. Control 2. No reminder letter
Outcomes	1. Number of patients who did not complete treatment 2. Number of patients who did not complete the treatment in spite of defaulter retrieval 3. Defaulters retrieval
Notes	Location: South India Baseline data: not reported Defaulter defined by author as a patient who failed to collect the drugs within 3 days after the due date of drug collection

Roberts 1983i

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: unclear Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of all randomized participants in the analysis: 200/200 (100%) Protection against contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 200 randomized Inclusion criteria: volunteers who participated in a university‐sponsored tuberculosis detection drive; mostly college students Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Intervention 1. Take‐home card 2. Postcard 3. Telephone call Control Direct person‐to‐person reminder
Outcomes	Number of participants who fail to return for skin‐test reading
Notes	Location: USA Baseline data: comparable

Roberts 1983ii

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: unclear Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of all randomized participants in the analysis: 553/553 (100%) Contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 553 randomized Inclusion criteria: volunteers who participated in a university‐sponsored tuberculosis detection drive Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Intervention 1. Take‐home card with or without enhanced message on the importance of returning, and with or without three types of overt commitment to return Control 2. No reminder card
Outcomes	Number of participants who fail to return for skin‐test reading
Notes	Location: USA Baseline data: comparable

Sanmarti 1993

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: unclear Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 275/318 (85%); 43/318 (13.5%) withdrew from treatment Protection against contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 318 randomized Inclusion criteria: school children of both sexes in the first year of primary school in state‐run and private schools in the provinces of Barcelona, on anti‐tuberculosis chemoprophylaxis Exclusion criteria: children with active tuberculosis confirmed by medical examination and chest x‐ray
Interventions	Intervention of interest 1. Childrens' mothers were telephoned by a specialized nursing personnel every 3 months who informed them of the advantages of chemoprophylaxis for their child's health and encouraged them to continue with this preventive measure Other interventions 2. Specialized nurse went to the patient's home every 3 months providing health education to the mother and child, encouraging them to continue with the preventive therapy, and giving them the same information leaflets given at the first visit 3. Child was seen by the physician every 3 months at the TB Prevention and Control Centre, providing health education and leaflets at each visit Control 4. No health education activity performed
Outcomes	1. Non‐adherence to final appointment 2. Negative Eidus‐Hamilton reaction
Notes	Location: Spain Baseline data: not reported

Tanke 1994

Methods	Quasi‐randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: within each 5‐week period each message variation was used once on each weekday, different variations were used each day of a given week by a computer‐generated system Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 2008/2008 (100%) Protection against contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 2008 randomized Inclusion criteria: patients with scheduled appointments in the Tuberculosis Control Program of Santa Clara County Health Department over a period of 6 months Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Interventions 1. Basic reminder: pre‐recorded message (TeleMinder system) from the county health department; identified the patient by name, indicated that the patient had an appointment the following day, and gave the address and phone number of the clinic twice; message could be repeated by remaining on the line; message did not refer to tuberculosis 2. Basic reminder plus authority endorsement: identified the Public Health Nurse at the Health Department as the source of the message 3. Basic reminder plus importance statement: following statement was inserted after the basic information: "Coming to this appointment is important so that you and your family will not become seriously ill." 4. Basic reminder plus importance statement plus authority endorsement Control 5. No message Appropriate recorded message was sent to patients between 1800 and 2100 the evening before the scheduled appointment. The system allows a message to be left on answering machines and to call back up to 5 times at half‐hour intervals if patients' lines were busy or there was no answer after 8 rings. For households whose primary language was English, Spanish, Vietnamese, or Tagalog, the message was sent in that language
Outcomes	Non‐attendance for a scheduled appointment: if a patient had > 1 appointment during the course of the study, only data from the first appointment were included
Notes	Location: USA Baseline data: not reported

Tanke 1994: diagnosis arm

Methods	Tanke 1994 results for patients in the Reactor Clinic for diagnosis
Participants	—
Interventions	—
Outcomes	—
Notes	—

Tanke 1994: prophylaxis arm

Methods	Tanke 1994 results for patients in the INH [isoniazid] Clinic for prophylaxis
Participants	—
Interventions	—
Outcomes	—
Notes	—

Tanke 1994: treatment arm

Methods	Tanke 1994 results for patients in the Case Clinic for treatment
Participants	—
Interventions	—
Outcomes	—
Notes	—

Tanke 1997

Methods	Randomized controlled trial Generation of allocation sequence: unclear Allocation concealment: unclear Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Blinding of providers and participants: not possible Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis: 701/701 (100%) Protection against contamination: unclear
Participants	Number: 701 randomized Inclusion criteria: persons undergoing tuberculin skin test at the 2 largest clinics of Santa Clara (California) County Immunization Program Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	Intervention 1. Pre‐recorded telephone reminder message (TeleMinder system) between 1800 and 2100 the evening before the day on which they were to return to have their skin test read, and the information was repeated twice in the participant's primary language Control 2. No reminder message
Outcomes	1. Total return failures 1.1. 2‐day delay 1.2. 3‐day delay
Notes	Location: USA Baseline data: Not reported

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

estudios incluidos

Study	Reason for exclusion
AL‐Hajjaj 2000	Case‐control study design
Alcaide Megías 1990	Intervention did not include reminders or late patient tracers
Bordley 2001	Most participants did not have need for screening, prophylaxis, or treatment for tuberculosis, and results for the individuals in these categories were not presented separately
Gordillo 2003	Intervention did not include reminders or late patient tracers
Hovell 2003	Intervention did not include reminders or late patient tracers
Jin 1993	Intervention did not include reminders or late patient tracers
Krishna 2002	Review article
Lin 2006	Cohort study design
Morisky 1990	Intervention did not include reminders or late patient tracers, except for those routinely provided and also applied to the control group
Morisky 2001	Intervention did not include reminders or late patient tracers
Nyamathi 2007	Process of late patient tracers not described, and the main objective was to assess predictors of latent tuberculosis infection completion by using structural equation modelling among homeless adults
Thiam 2007	Reminders or late patient tracers not adequately described or systematically applied

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer

Comparison 1. Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patients who did not complete treatment Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.1 Comparison 1 Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer, Outcome 1 Patients who did not complete treatment.
1.1 Home visit plus health education vs usual care (directly observed therapy, short‐course)	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Reminder letter vs usual care	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Failure of patients to return to treatment after first missed appointment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 1.2 Comparison 1 Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer, Outcome 2 Failure of patients to return to treatment after first missed appointment.

Open in table viewer

Comparison 2. Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patients who did not complete treatment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.1 Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 1 Patients who did not complete treatment.
2 Treatment interrupted for 2 consecutive months or more Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.2 Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 2 Treatment interrupted for 2 consecutive months or more.
3 Treatment failure Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.3 Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 3 Treatment failure.
4 Death Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.4 Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 4 Death.
5 Sputum‐smear positive follow up Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 2.5 Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 5 Sputum‐smear positive follow up.
5.1 2 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 5 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.3 End of treatment	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer

Comparison 3. Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patients who did not complete treatment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.1 Comparison 3 Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter, Outcome 1 Patients who did not complete treatment.
2 Failure of patients to return for treatment after missed appointment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 3.2 Comparison 3 Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter, Outcome 2 Failure of patients to return for treatment after missed appointment.

Open in table viewer

Comparison 4. Reminders (automated telephone message) vs no message

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Non‐attendance at clinic appointment Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 4.1 Comparison 4 Reminders (automated telephone message) vs no message, Outcome 1 Non‐attendance at clinic appointment.
1.1 Basic message vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Message + authority vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 Message + importance statement vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.4 Message + authority + importance vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.5 Any type of message vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer

Comparison 5. Reminders (non‐automated reminder phone call) vs no reminder

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Non‐adherence to Mantoux test reading Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 5.1 Comparison 5 Reminders (non‐automated reminder phone call) vs no reminder, Outcome 1 Non‐adherence to Mantoux test reading.
1.1 Reminder phone call vs no call	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer

Comparison 6. Reminder plus health education vs usual care

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Non‐adherence to final clinic appointment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 6.1 Comparison 6 Reminder plus health education vs usual care, Outcome 1 Non‐adherence to final clinic appointment.
1.1 Phone call plus health education vs usual care	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Home visit plus health education vs usual care	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer

Comparison 7. Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failed to return for skin test reading Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 7.1 Comparison 7 Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder, Outcome 1 Failed to return for skin test reading.
1.1 Expert vs non‐expert	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Take‐home card vs postcard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 Take‐home card vs telephone call	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.4 Take‐home card vs person‐to‐person	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.5 Postcard vs telephone call	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.6 Postcard vs person‐to‐person	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.7 Telephone call vs person‐to‐person	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Failed to return for skin test reading Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
Open in figure viewer Analysis 7.2 Comparison 7 Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder, Outcome 2 Failed to return for skin test reading.

Figure 1

Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer: Patients who did not complete treatment

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter: Patients who did not complete treatment

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Reminders (automated telephone message) vs no message: Non‐attendance at clinic appointment

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

Reminder plus health education vs usual care: Non‐adherence to final clinic appointment

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer, Outcome 1 Patients who did not complete treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer, Outcome 2 Failure of patients to return to treatment after first missed appointment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 1 Patients who did not complete treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 2 Treatment interrupted for 2 consecutive months or more.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 3 Treatment failure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 4 Death.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care, Outcome 5 Sputum‐smear positive follow up.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter, Outcome 1 Patients who did not complete treatment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter, Outcome 2 Failure of patients to return for treatment after missed appointment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Reminders (automated telephone message) vs no message, Outcome 1 Non‐attendance at clinic appointment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Reminders (non‐automated reminder phone call) vs no reminder, Outcome 1 Non‐adherence to Mantoux test reading.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Reminder plus health education vs usual care, Outcome 1 Non‐adherence to final clinic appointment.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder, Outcome 1 Failed to return for skin test reading.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder, Outcome 2 Failed to return for skin test reading.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Table 1. Detailed search strategies

Search set	Cochrane SR^a	CENTRAL	MEDLINE^b	EMBASE^b	LILACS^b	SCI‐EXPANDED & SSCI	CINAHL
1	tuberculosis	tuberculosis	tuberculosis	tuberculosis	tuberculosis	tuberculosis	tuberculosis
2	adherence	PATIENT COMPLIANCE	TUBERCULOSIS/DRUG THERAPY/PREVENTION AND CONTROL	TUBERCULOSIS	adherence	adherence	adherence
3	compliance	PATIENT DROPOUTS	PATIENT COMPLIANCE	PATIENT‐COMPLIANCE	compliance	compliance	compliance
4	monitor*	REMINDER SYSTEMS	PATIENT DROPOUTS	medication adherence	monitor*	monitor*	monitor*
5	reminder*	TREATMENT REFUSAL	COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOUR	REMINDER‐SYSTEM	reminder*	reminder*	reminder*
6	2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6	DIRECTLY OBSERVED THERAPY	TREATMENT REFUSAL	TREATMENT‐REFUSAL	2 or 3 or 4 or 5	non‐adherence	non‐adherence
7	1 and 6	medication adherence	medication adherence	DIRECTLY‐OBSERVED‐THERAPY	1 and 6	late patient tracer	late patient tracer
8	—	electronic monitoring	REMINDER SYSTEMS	electronic monitoring	—	2‐7/or	2‐7/or
9	—	nonadherence	electronic monitoring	nonadherence	—	1 and 8	1 and 8
10	—	non‐adherence	nonadherence	non‐adherence	—	—	—
11	—	late patient tracer	non‐adherence	late patient tracer	—	—	—
12	—	2‐11/or	DIRECTLY OBSERVED THERAPY	1 or 2	—	—	—
13	—	1 and 12	late patient tracer	3‐11/or	—	—	—
14	—	—	1 or 2	13 and 14	—	—	—
15	—	—	3‐13/or	—	—	—	—
16	—	—	14 and 15	—	—	—	—
^aCochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialized Register. ^bSearch terms used in combination with the search strategy for retrieving trials developed by The Cochrane Collaboration (Lefebvre 2006); upper case: MeSH or EMTREE heading; lower case: free text term.

Table 1. Detailed search strategies

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 2. Risk of bias assessment

Intervention	Trial	Design	Generation of allocation sequence	Allocation concealment	Blinded assessment	Inclusion of randomized participants in the analysis	Protection against contamination
Late patient tracers	Krishnaswami 1981	RCT	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
	Paramasivan 1993	RCT	Adequate	Adequate	No	Adequate	Done
	Mohan 2003	RCT	Adequate	Adequate	Yes	Adequate	Done
Reminder systems	Roberts 1983i	RCT	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
	Roberts 1983ii	RCT	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
	Sanmarti 1993	RCT	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
	Tanke 1994	Quasi‐RCT	Inadequate	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
	Cheng 1997	Quasi‐RCT	Inadequate	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
	Tanke 1997	RCT	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Adequate	Unclear
RCT: randomized controlled trial.

Table 2. Risk of bias assessment

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patients who did not complete treatment Show forest plot	2		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Home visit plus health education vs usual care (directly observed therapy, short‐course)	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Reminder letter vs usual care	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Failure of patients to return to treatment after first missed appointment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 1. Late patient tracers vs no late patient tracer

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patients who did not complete treatment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 Treatment interrupted for 2 consecutive months or more Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

3 Treatment failure Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

4 Death Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5 Sputum‐smear positive follow up Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

5.1 2 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.2 5 months	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5.3 End of treatment	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 2. Late patient tracers (home visit plus health education) vs usual care

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Patients who did not complete treatment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

2 Failure of patients to return for treatment after missed appointment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 3. Late patient tracers (home visit) vs letter

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Reminders (automated telephone message) vs no message

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Non‐attendance at clinic appointment Show forest plot	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Basic message vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Message + authority vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 Message + importance statement vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.4 Message + authority + importance vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.5 Any type of message vs no message	3		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 4. Reminders (automated telephone message) vs no message

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Reminders (non‐automated reminder phone call) vs no reminder

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Non‐adherence to Mantoux test reading Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Reminder phone call vs no call	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 5. Reminders (non‐automated reminder phone call) vs no reminder

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Reminder plus health education vs usual care

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Non‐adherence to final clinic appointment Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Phone call plus health education vs usual care	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Home visit plus health education vs usual care	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 6. Reminder plus health education vs usual care

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Failed to return for skin test reading Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

1.1 Expert vs non‐expert	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.2 Take‐home card vs postcard	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.3 Take‐home card vs telephone call	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.4 Take‐home card vs person‐to‐person	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.5 Postcard vs telephone call	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.6 Postcard vs person‐to‐person	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.7 Telephone call vs person‐to‐person	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2 Failed to return for skin test reading Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected

Comparison 7. Reminder vs other types of reminders and no reminder

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Referencias

Referencias de los estudios incluidos en esta revisión

Cheng 1997 {published data only}

Krishnaswami 1981 {published data only}

Mohan 2003 {published data only}

Paramasivan 1993 {published data only}

Roberts 1983i {published data only}

Roberts 1983ii {published data only}

Sanmarti 1993 {published data only}

Tanke 1994 {published data only}

Tanke 1994: diagnosis arm {published data only}

Tanke 1994: prophylaxis arm {published data only}

Tanke 1994: treatment arm {published data only}

Tanke 1997 {published data only}

Referencias de los estudios excluidos de esta revisión

AL‐Hajjaj 2000 {published data only}

Alcaide Megías 1990 {published data only}

Bordley 2001 {published data only}

Gordillo 2003 {published data only}

Hovell 2003 {published data only}

Jin 1993 {published data only}

Krishna 2002 {published data only}

Lin 2006 {published data only}

Morisky 1990 {published data only}

Morisky 2001 {published data only}

Nyamathi 2007 {published data only}

Thiam 2007 {published data only}

Referencias adicionales

Bosch Capblanch 2007

Goble 1993

Green 2003

Haynes 2008

Jagota 1996

Johansson 1999

Jüni 2001

Lefebvre 2006

M'Imunya 2007

Mitchison 1998

O'Boyle 2002

Ormerod 1991

Review Manager 5 [Computer program]

Thilakavathi 1993

Vann 2005

Volmink 2007

Weis 1994

WHO 2003a

WHO 2003b

WHO 2006

WHO 2007

WHO 2008

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Data and analyses

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso