Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2023 Jan 20;3(1):e0000741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000741

Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Awareness survey of front-desk healthcare workers in Northern Tanzania

Togolani Maya 1,2,*, Erick Komba 1, Gloria Mensah 3, Nicholaus Mnyambwa 4, Basra Doulla 2, Sayoki Mfinanga 4, Kennedy Addo 3, Rudovick Kazwala 1
Editor: Sabine Hermans5
PMCID: PMC10021751  PMID: 36963008

Abstract

Over the past decade, there have been increasing reports of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) species being implicated in tuberculosis (TB) treatment failure or misdiagnosed as TB. Inadequate awareness of NTM pulmonary disease among healthcare workers (HCWs) may contribute to a low index of suspicion for patients presenting to their hospitals. In this study, we assessed the awareness of NTM pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) among front desk HCWs in Northern Tanzania. A cross-sectional descriptive survey was carried out among front desk HCWs in four administrative regions of Northern Tanzania. A standardized questionnaire was administered to consented participants from four clusters; clinicians, laboratory scientists, nurses, and pharmacists serving TB patients from Regional and District Health Facilities. Each participant was asked a set of questions, scored and the total score for each participant was determined. An awareness score was used to measure the level of awareness. The average score for all participants was estimated including the 95% confidence interval (CI). The overall awareness score was 24.1%, 95% CI 22.0–26.2%. History of training, experience in TB care, level of health facilities, age group, and setting were found to be statistically associated with the level of awareness of study participants. More than two-thirds (67%) of participants believe that pulmonary NTM and TB are clinically similar and 60% are not aware that AFB Microscopy cannot distinguish between the two. Only 13% of participants could mention at least one risk factor for NTM pulmonary disease. The level of awareness of NTM pulmonary disease was poor among HCWs in the surveyed TB clinics. National TB Programs are advised to include a topic on NTM in various on-job TB training packages for HCWs.

Introduction

Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are mycobacteria species not assigned to Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) nor Mycobacterium leprae. They are also known as atypical mycobacteria, environmental mycobacteria, opportunistic mycobacteria, or mycobacteria other than tuberculosis (MOTT). These bacteria are ubiquitous in the environment and can be isolated from soil and water including sanitation (chlorine-treated) water [1]. Humans acquire pulmonary NTM infections mainly through inhalation of water droplets from contaminated sources like showers. There is no strong evidence of human-to-human transmission. Bryant et al. and Ruis et al. reported evidence of human-to-human transmission among patients admitted to hospital and among patients with cystic fibrosis respectively [2, 3], but the epidemiological analytical studies have not supported such an evidence [4]. On the other hand, the distribution of NTM varies globally depending on the environmental, microbial, ecological, climatic, and weather characteristics of a place [5]. MTBC causes tuberculosis (TB) and Mycobacterium leprae causes leprosy while NTM pulmonary infections can lead to either normal lung colonization or pulmonary disease with TB-like symptoms. This condition is known as NTM pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) [6]. NTM species have frequently been isolated from patients with TB signs [710]. As for MTBC, NTMs are also AFB positive on the microscope, Xpert MTB/Rif discriminates and cannot identify these bacteria [11]. Diagnosis of NTMs mainly relies on clinical signs, radiological features, and microbiological assessment of presumptive patients [12].

Although clinical pathogenicity of NTM is not yet well established, the organisms have been associated with a variety of diseases from localized infections to disseminated diseases such as acute or chronic respiratory diseases, lymphadenitis, sinusitis, skin and soft tissue infection [12]. However, NTMs predominantly present as a chronic pulmonary disease [13]. People with other underlying diseases such as Acquired Immuno-deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and chronic lung diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis (CF) are more prone to the disease. Studies carried out in Kilimanjaro and Arusha Tanzania discovered that NTMs can cause septicemia and lymphadenitis [14, 15]. NTM species have frequently been isolated from patients with TB signs [79]. For this reason, more rigorous studies are warranted to assess the pathogenesis of various mycobacterial species like avium and abscessus complex [1618].

The prevalence and number of NTM species causing disease in humans have been reported to increase over the recent decades. In the USA for example, the prevalence of NTM was found to be high among women and the elderly (65 years and above). Between 2008 and 2015, the prevalence of NTM increased by at least 10% in 39 states [19]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 studies on pulmonary NTM in the South-Saharan countries revealed a prevalence of 7.5% [20]. This includes saprophytes and the emerging species that cause diseases in humans and animals. A study conducted in 2013 reported a total of 140 NTM species [21], while Meier-Kolthoff [22] lists more than 200 NTM species. In Tanzania, two studies carried out in Tanga Region (Tanzania) reported 9.7% [7] and 8.1% [8] of presumptive TB patients were infected with NTM. Despite a significantly high proportion of NTM cases among TB presumptive cases, NTMs have never been considered reportable in programmatic control measures. Early detection of NTM cases through a culture of at least two sputa specimens taken on separate days and correct management ultimately improves treatment success among patients with the NTM-PD [23].

Control of pulmonary NTM disease can be achieved partly through raising awareness of NTM among healthcare workers (HCWs) and thus suspiciousness of patients presenting in their hospitals [19, 24]. A high suspicious index on presumptive TB cases and cases under treatment helps in ruling out NTM and proper management of cases [25]. This study aimed to assess awareness of pulmonary NTM disease among HCWs in TB clinics in Northern Tanzania. The generated information should contribute to proper prevention measures, detection, and management of cases thus reducing incident rate, and treatment failures among misdiagnosed TB patients, and eventually improving the health of people.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

This study protocol was approved by the Sokoine University of Agriculture Institutional Research Review Board, and the Institutional Research Ethical Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol. IX/3245). Gateway permission was obtained from the Medical officer in-charge of each hospital visited. This study obtained a written informed consent from all study participants. Study identification numbers were used instead of subjects’ names to ensure that the identity of each participant remains anonymous. Data obtained were kept in a computer with protected access using a password, and hard copies were kept in a lockable cabinet.

Study design and setting

This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey conducted in Health Facilities located in Northern Tanzania (Tanga, Arusha, Manyara, and Kilimanjaro) between November 2019 to February 2020 (Fig 1). This survey was designed based on the WHO guideline for developing knowledge, attitude, and practice surveys [26]. These regions are among the top ten high TB burden regions in Tanzania [2732]. It was intended to reach all Regional and District Hospitals.

Fig 1. Study site.

Fig 1

The map was generated by authors using administrative boundaries shapefile obtained from the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics.

Study population and sampling procedure

Health care workers involved in TB care from TB clinics of the selected hospitals formed the study population for this survey. From the four selected regions, we included all Reginal and District Hospitals, a total of 33 Health Facilities (HFs) all with active TB clinics. For each facility, at least one representative from four clusters of TB front-desk healthcare workers namely clinicians, nurses, laboratory technologists, and pharmacists was conveniently selected for the interview. Thus, we estimated to recruit 132 participants (four participants per facility) in this survey. However, due to logistical constraints, we were not able to reach four facilities. Study participants from each cluster were then purposively selected based on their availability during survey visits. Participants who are not involved directly in the diagnosis and management of pulmonary TB were excluded. Only participants who provided written consent were interviewed.

Questionnaire administration

We conducted face-to-face interviews using a structured questionnaire on the demographic characteristics of the study participants, their general awareness, and awareness on transmission, diagnosis, and management of NTM infections (S1 Questionnaire). The questionnaire was developed based on information gathered from various research findings including multi-center and systematic reviews on NTM, authors’ knowledge, and experience in the field and validated by experts in mycobacteriology. A pre-test was conducted by interviewing ten participants to validate the questionnaire tool. The questionnaire was then revised to rephrase questions that had multiple interpretations, to ensure that they are specific, use simple language to minimize biases as per standard requirements [26]. While twenty-eight questions carrying 32 responses were specific to NTM others were assessing general awareness in the field. Most of the responses were categorical except for age and awareness scores. It took 30 to 45 minutes to administer the questionnaire to each participant.

Data management and statistical analysis

Collected data were encoded into 2010 Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets (S1 Data). Scoring was done for each participant based on the questions that were specific to the assessment of NTM awareness. Data cleaning and some basic descriptive statistics were done in Microsoft Excel. The data set was then imported to R Studio version 1.2.5033 for further analysis. HCWs levels of awareness were assessed in terms of percentage score from a total of questions asked of which the answers were correct. An unpaired t-test procedure was used to estimate the mean of awareness between males and females HCWs. All variations with a p-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results interpretation

This study used among others “awareness score” as the main outcome variable. Participants were considered aware of a particular research item on the study questionnaire when they gave a correct answer. Each correct answer was scored “one” except for items that required a participant to provide more than one response in which a score of “one” was given when a participant was able to mention only one and a score of “two” was awarded when a participant was able to mention more than one correct response. Each participant was scored out of the total score i.e. 32 and multiplied by 100 to a get percentage score. Scores were ranked as poor, fair, and good as indicated in Table 1 [33]. Percentage awareness of participants was also evaluated based on individual research items like the ability to mention any other name for NTM and any species.

Table 1. How score-based awareness was ranked.

S/N Score ranking (%) Level of awareness
01 0–49 Poor/Unsatisfactory
02 50–74 Fair/Satisfactory/Moderate
03 75–100 Good/High/Excellent

Study results

Study setting analyses

A total of 29 (88%) Regional and District Hospitals were visited out of 33 available in the region. Of these HFs one (3%) was a National TB Reference Hospital, two (7%) were Regional Referral Hospitals (RRHs), and 26 (90%) were District Hospitals (DHs). Of the district hospitals, 13 were public-owned, six were faith-based HFs also called Designated District Hospitals (DDHs) and seven were Healthcare Centres (HCs) for Districts that didn’t have established district hospitals. Tanga Region had the highest number of HFs (11, 38%), while Arusha had the lowest (five, 17%). Four HFs could not be visited due to various reasons, among them being in-accessibility during the study period which resulted from heavy rains (Ngorongoro and Bumbuli District Hospitals). Others were Mawenzi RHH and Mount Meru RRH, the reason being unaffordable research fees.

Participants’ demographic characteristics

A total of 120 participants were interviewed with an average age of 40 years, 95% CI 38–42 years with a range between 24 to 60 years. It was also noted that most of the participants had a work experience of between 1 and 5 years. While the majority of the participants with younger ages (below 41) were males, the majority of participants with old ages were females. Fig 2 indicates variation in the numbers of respondents among various demographic characteristics. Males and females were coincidentally represented in equal proportion. Most female participants had lower education levels compared to males. Table 2 summarises the numbers of participants per type of HF visited. Males constituted a high proportion of all cadres except nurses of which the number of females was by far higher than that of males (Fig 3). Figs 4 and 5 display the distribution of different cadres of participants based on gender and region.

Fig 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Fig 2

Table 2. Number of study participants for each type of health facility.

Type of Health Facility Female Male Total (%)
NTRH 3 1 4 (3)
RRH 3 6 9 (8)
DH 27 28 55 (46)
DDH 16 13 29 (24)
HC 11 12 23 (19)
Total 60 60 120

Fig 3. Gender variation for each cadre.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Distribution of participants by education levels.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Distribution of participants by level of education in the four regions.

Fig 5

Pulmonary NTM disease awareness score results

The mean score for awareness of pulmonary NTM was 24.1%, 95% CI 22.0–26.2%; the highest was 61% and the lowest was 3%. Only five (4%) of all participants had a moderate level of awareness (Table 1) on pulmonary NTM while all the remaining had a low level of awareness. Table 3 summarizes mean awareness scores, 95% CIs, and p-values that measure significance of any variations between the outcome variable and the explanatory variables. Female participants had an average awareness score of 22%, 95% CI 20–24% while among males was 26%, 95% CI 24–28% as displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. NTM awareness score among study participants with different attributes.

Explanatory variables Variability Mean Awareness Score (%) 95% CI p-value
Gender Men 26 24–28 0.32
Women 22 20–24
Age group (years) 21–30 26 24–28 2.20e-16
31–40 26 24–28
41–50 23 21–25
51–60 21 19–23
Experience in Health Care Less than 1 13 NA 0.97
1–5 28 26–30
6–10 22 20–24
11–15 18 16–20
Greater than 15 23 21–25
Experience in TB care [years] Less than 1 20 19–21 5.4e-05
1–5 26 24–28
6–10 24 22–26
11–15 18 16–20
Greater than 15 22 21–23
Education Level Certificate 20 18–22 0.85
Diploma 24 22–26
Degree 29 27–31
Higher degree 28 NA
Region Tanga 25 23–27 0.04
Arusha 18 17–19
Manyara 24 22–26
Kilimanjaro 26 24–26
Cadre Pharmacist 22 19.5–24.5 0.73
Nurse 21 19–23
Clinician 26 24–28
Laboratory personnel 26 24–28
NTM training Yes 44 1.25 3.7e-11
No 24 22–26
Type of HF NRH 46 43–49 0.00021
RRH 33 30–36
DH 22 20–24
HC 23 21–25

Kilimanjaro Region had the highest average awareness score of 26%, 95% CI 24–28% followed by Tanga at 25%, 95% CI 23–27% and Manyara at 24%, 95% CI 24–26% while Arusha had the lowest mean awareness score of 18%, 95% CI 17–19% see Fig 6.

Fig 6. Boxplot of mean pulmonary NTM awareness scores per region.

Fig 6

Of the 120 participants, only three (3%) had attended a training where NTM was a topic for discussion. It was also found that 79 (66%) of participants were aware that not all mycobacteria species can cause TB. Only 48 (40%) participants reported having ever heard the term non-tuberculous or mycobacteria other than tuberculosis in the whole period of their career. Although only 19 (16%) of participants could correctly define NTM, 77 (64%) believed that pulmonary NTM infection is clinically similar to TB. Thirty-three (28%) of all the interviewed participants were aware that not all NTM can cause diseases in humans. Only 12 (10%) and 12 (12%) participants could mention any other name and species of NTM. Table 4 shows responses to other questions that were asked during this survey.

Table 4. Participants’ responses to the survey questions.

Category Item Responses Counts %
General awareness questions Ever trained on NTM Yes 3 2
No 117 97
NTM are freely available in water and soil TRUE 18 15
FALSE 12 10
No response 90 75
Ever heard about NTM/MOTT before Yes 48 40
No 72 60
Able to define NTM Yes 19 16
No 101 84
All NTM can cause diseases in human TRUE 42 35
FALSE 33 28
Not Sure 45 38
Able to mention any other name for NTM Able 12 10
Unable 108 90
Diagnosis of pulmonary NTM Pulmonary NTM and TB are clinically different Yes 38 33
No 77 67
NTM presents as i] Pulmonary ii] Extra–pulmonary iii] Both Pulmonary 22 19
Extra–Pulmonary 28 24
Both 67 57
Ability to identify risk factors for NTM infection Able 72 60
Unable 48 40
Microscope cannot distinguish between MTBC and NTM TRUE 48 40
FALSE 33 28
Not Sure 39 32
GeneXpert can detect both NTM and MTBC TRUE 51 42
FALSE 32 27
Not Sure 37 31
Which of these is the gold standard test for NTM Culture 49 41
GeneXpert 29 24
Microscopy 7 7
Not Sure 34 28
The DNA test is the definitive for NTM TRUE 44 37
FALSE 12 10
Not Sure 64 53
Transmission of NTM NTM found in soil and water TRUE 18 15
FALSE 22 18
Not Sure 80 67
Mention Pulmonary NTM risk factor Able to mention any 15 13
Can’t mention any 105 87
Pulmonary NTM is acquired through inhalation Yes 84 70
No 36 30
Can be transmitted from one person to another TRUE 52 53
FALSE 19 19
Not Sure 27 28
Treatment of NTM All pulmonary infecting NTM species can be treated with TB drugs TRUE 39 33
FALSE 29 24
Not Sure 52 43
All NTM species can be treated with the same drug regimen TRUE 15 13
FALSE 46 38
Not sure 59 49
Ability to mention any of the drug recommended for NTM Mention at least one 13 12
Couldn’t mention any 98 88
How long (months) extended treatment takes after NTM case converts to culture negative 3 3 3
6 27 22
12 1 1
24 1 1
Not sure 85 71

Discussion

Since pulmonary NTM infections present with signs similar to TB, competence among HCWs in TB clinics will improve the management of cases of this emerging public health threat. The low level of NTM awareness observed in this study supports the recommendations for building awareness among HCWs on the disease especially in TB endemic countries [34]. This is important because the management of pulmonary NTM differs significantly from that of TB. Otherwise, it takes a high suspicious index among HCWs for diagnosis of patients, treatment, and transmission prevention.

The most important finding in this study was the poor awareness of pulmonary NTM infections among HCWs in TB clinics (Table 3). Only four percent had been found to have moderate awareness of pulmonary NTM infections, being a low proportion compared to that found in a similar study on TB awareness in Uganda in which authors reported 62% of the HCWs being aware [35].

The current study found a significant association between awareness and the following factors; experience in TB care, history of training on NTM, age group, type of HF, and administrative region (Table 3). Although there was a variation in mean scores between gender, cadre, level of education, and experience in health care services provision, they were not significantly associated with the level of awareness of NTM.

The observed association of awareness with experience in TB care suggests a difference in proper management of NTM cases between juniors in TB care versus seniors. This calls for interventions like on-job, training, and mentorship of junior HCWs on NTM infections. However, this should consider the contradicting fact that staff with younger age were more aware of NTM compared to elders (Table 3). In addition, the high level of awareness of NTM of staff from RRH compared to DH and HC suggests that an NTM case has a greater chance of proper management at high-level facilities compared to lower levels. This supports the referral system that currently exists in Tanzania. Similarly, NTM infected persons in Kilimanjaro was found to have advantages in receiving proper medical care when compared with a similar patient from the Arusha region which had a lower average score. From a scaled-up similar survey, the information generated will be important in the prioritization of limited resources.

Participants in the age groups of 21 to 30 years and 31 to 40 years had the highest score compared to those in higher age groups. This correlation coincided with the finding that participants with lesser experience on the job i.e. one to five years and six to 10 years (26% 95% CI 24–27 and 24 95% CI 22–26 respectively) had higher awareness scores respectively. This suggests that fresh HCWs in lower age groups and experience had an advantage due to recent graduation from colleges where NTM has been part of most of the current curricula. The history of on-job training of which NTM was a topic of discussion had a strong association with the high level of awareness of NTM. This finding is worth noting and thus formalization of an NTM module in the current TB training packages for HCWs is highly recommended. It will create awareness among practitioners on NTM as a differential diagnosis in situations of TB treatment failures and that not every treatment failure is a result of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex drug resistance [36]. It will also promote the inclusion of NTM as a differential diagnosis in Xpert MTB/Rif tested TB-negative patients who present with symptoms of atypical TB [11]. Although clinicians had a higher mean score than nurses and pharmacists, this study could not find a significant difference in the level of awareness between the cadres of HCWs studied.

A significant number of HCWs (70%) reported that NTMs are acquired mainly through inhalation which is right but only 19% were aware that there is not enough evidence of person-to-person transmission [37]. Despite evidence of NTM being acquired directly from the environment, limited findings support the transmission of M. abscessus between patients with Cystic Fibrosis [2]. These bacteria are ubiquitous in water and soil, but only 18 (15%) of HCWs were aware of this disease condition. Very few participants were able to mention any risk factor for pulmonary NTM disease but a significant number could report a risk factor of NTM-PD from a list of factors on a multiple-choice question. A good understanding seems to have been influenced by their experience that most lung infectious diseases result from similar risk factors.

The finding that more than two-thirds of respondents were aware that NTM-PD presents with clinical signs similar to TB indicates a strength in the studied population. Most participants were aware that NTM-PD cannot be differentiated from TB clinical features. This suggests the need for laboratory involvement in the confirmation of the disease. Although less than half (40%) of participants were aware that Microscope cannot differentiate NTM from TB and 42% believed that Xpert MTB/Rif can detect NTM [11]. This shows that clinicians have been expecting NTM cases to be reported from laboratories having these test techniques which is contrary to the truth. In addition, less than half of HCWs interviewed were aware that culture is the gold standard test for NTM infections and that PCR test is the definitive test for diagnosis of NTM infection. This shows that clinicians had inadequate knowledge about the diagnosis of NTM and hence a low suspicion index for patients presumed with the disease condition.

Awareness of drugs and regimens recommended for treatment is crucial for the proper management of pulmonary NTM infections. This study found a poor level of awareness among HCWs of drugs and/or regimens for the treatment of pulmonary NTM. Only two in 10 HCWs could mention at least one of the drugs recommended for pulmonary NTM infections. Although MAC and MABC cannot respond to most ant-TB drugs, some NTM species like Mycobacteria kansasii respond to Rifampicin, Isoniazid, and Ethambutol. Most participants were not aware that not all NTM species cause pulmonary infections and can be treated with some anti-TB drugs [23, 38, 39]. While MAC responds to macrolides in addition to rifampicin and Ethambutol, MABC responds to macrolides in addition to aminoglycosides and other antibiotics [40].

Limitations

The questionnaire used needs more validation steps like pilot tests with a larger number of respondents. This is necessary to explore and include comprehensive response options and to minimize leading and confusing questions. For this study, this might have to some extent affected the levels of reliability and validity of data generated hence the inferential statistical measures. Furthermore, the lack of previous studies done on the topic has limited the level of validity of the findings [41]. However, our study shed light on the awareness of NTM among HCWs that warrant further studies and interventions.

Conclusions and recommendations

The level of awareness of NTM pulmonary disease among health care workers in TB clinics was generally unsatisfactory to be able to diagnose, treat and prevent the disease. The findings call for the inclusion of an NTM component in the TB training package for Healthcare workers. This study provides a baseline for further studies on the topic in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Ntmpd survey dataset.

(XLSX)

S1 Questionnaire. Survey questionnaire.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the DELTAS Africa Initiative (Afrique One-ASPIRE/DEL-15-008 to TM). Afrique One-ASPIRE is funded by a consortium of donors including the African Academy of Sciences (AAS) Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Planning and Coordinating (NEPAD) Agency, the Wellcome Trust (107753/A/15/Z), and the UK government. The sponsors had no involvement in the study design, data collection, or in interpretation of the data, and the views expressed in this piece of research are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Afrique One-ASPIRE.

References

  • 1.Honda JR, Virdi R, Chan ED, Dick T, Falkinham JO. Global Environmental Nontuberculous Mycobacteria and Their Contemporaneous Man-Made and Natural Niches. 2018; August 9:1–11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bryant JM, Grogono DM, Greaves D, Foweraker J, Roddick I, Inns T, et al. Whole-genome sequencing to identify transmission of Mycobacterium abscessus between patients with cystic fibrosis: A retrospective cohort study. The Lancet. 2013;381(9877):1551–60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60632-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ruis C, Bryant J.M., Bell S.C, et al. Dissemination of Mycobacterium abscessus via global transmission networks. Nature Microbiology 2021. 6:1279–1288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Harris KA, Underwood A, Kenna DTD, Brooks A, Kavaliunaite E, Kapatai G, et al. Whole-Genome Sequencing and Epidemiological Analysis Do Not Provide Evidence for Cross- transmission of Mycobacterium abscessus in a Cohort of Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Patients. 2015;60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hoefsloot W, Van Ingen J, Andrejak C, Ängeby K., Bauriaud R, Bemer P, et al. (2013). The geographic diversity of nontuberculous mycobacteria isolated from pulmonary samples: an NTM-NET collaborative study. European Respiratory Journal, 42(6), 1604–1613. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00149212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Piersimoni C. and Scarparo C. 2008. Pulmonary infections associated with non-tuberculous mycobacteria in immunocompetent patients. The Lancet infectious diseases, 8(5), pp.323–334. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70100-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hoza AS, Mfinanga SGM, Rodloff AC, Moser I, König B. Increased isolation of nontuberculous mycobacteria among TB suspects in Northeastern, Tanzania: Public health and diagnostic implications for control programs. BMC Research Notes. 2016. Feb 17;9(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hoza AS, Lupindu AM, Mfinanga SGM, Moser I, König B. The role of nontuberculous mycobacteria in the diagnosis, management, and quantifying risks of tuberculosis in Tanga, Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Health Research. 2016;18(2):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kilale AM, Ngadaya E, Muhumuza J, Kagaruki GB, Lema YL, Ngowi BJ, et al. Who has mycobacterial disease? A cross-sectional study in agropastoral communities in Tanzania. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mnyambwa NP, Ngadaya ES, Kimaro G, Kim DJ, Kazwala R, Petrucka P, et al. Assessment of sputum smear-positive but culture-negative results among newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis patients in Tanzania. International Journal of General Medicine. 2017. Jul 12;10:199–205. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S137469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rice JP, Seifert M, Moser KS, Rodwell TC. Performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampin resistance in a low-incidence, high-resource setting. PLoS ONE. 2017. Oct 1;12(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Griffith DE, Aksamit T, Brown-Elliott BA, Catanzaro A, Daley C, Gordin F, et al. An official ATS/IDSA statement: Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nontuberculous mycobacterial diseases. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2007;175(4):367–416. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200604-571ST [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tortoli E. Clinical manifestations of nontuberculous mycobacteria infections. Vol. 15, Clinical Microbiology and Infection. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2009. p. 906–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mfinanga SGM, Morkve O, Kazwala RR, Cleaveland S, Sharp MJ, Kunda J, et al. Mycobacterial Adenitis: Role of Mycobacterium bovis, Non-Tuberculous Mycobacteria, HIV Infection, and Risk Factors in Arusha, Tanzania. African E, Journal M. 2004;81(4):171–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Crump JA, Ingen J van, Morrissey AB, Boeree MJ, Mavura DR, Swai B, et al. Invasive Disease Caused by Nontuberculous. 2009;15(1):53–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Vande WY, Cardinaels N, Bomans P, Chin T, Boelens J, André E, et al. Clinical relevance of pulmonary non-tuberculous mycobacterial isolates in three reference centers in Belgium: A multicentre retrospective analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2019. Dec 17;19(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schiff HF, Jones S, Achaiah A, Pereira A, Strait G, Green B. Clinical relevance of non-tuberculous mycobacteria isolated from respiratory specimens: seven-year experience in a UK hospital. Scientific Reports. 2019. Dec 1;9(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Feng JY, Chen WC, Chen YY, Su WJ. Clinical relevance and diagnosis of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease in populations at risk. Vol. 119, Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. Elsevier B.V.; 2020. p. S23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Winthrop KL, Henkle E, Walker A, Cassidy M, Hedberg K, Schafer S. On the reportability of nontuberculous mycobacterial disease to public health authorities. Vol. 14, Annals of the American Thoracic Society. American Thoracic Society; 2017. p. 314–7. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201610-802PS [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Okoi C, Anderson STB, Antonio M, Mulwa SN, Gehre F, Adetifa IMO. Non-tuberculous Mycobacteria isolated from Pulmonary samples in sub-Saharan Africa—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Scientific Reports (Internet). 2017;(September):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12175-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Van Ingen J. Diagnosis of nontuberculous mycobacterial infections. Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2013;34(1):103–9. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1333569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meier-Kolthoff J.P., Sardà Carbasse J., Peinado-Olarte R.L. and Göker M. (2022). TYGS and LPSN: a database tandem for fast and reliable genome-based classification and nomenclature of prokaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res, 50, D801–D807; doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab902 Accessed on 26th August 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Haworth CS, Banks J, Capstick T, Fisher AJ, Gorsuch T, Laurenson IF, et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD). Vol. 72, Thorax. BMJ Publishing Group; 2017. p. ii1–64. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chalmers JD, Aksamit T, Carvalho ACC, Rendon A, Franco I. Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary infections. Vol. 24, Pulmonology. Elsevier Espana S.L.U; 2018. p. 120–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.WHO. | WHO End TB Strategy. WHO; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stop TB Partnership [WHO]. Advocacy, communication and social mobilization for TB control: a guide to developing knowledge, attitude and practice surveys. World Health Organization; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme. Annual report for 2015 (Internet). Available from: www.ntlp.go.tz
  • 28.National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme—Tanzania. Annual report for 2018.
  • 29.National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme—Tanzania. Annual report for 2013.
  • 30.National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme—Tanzania. Annual report for 2016.
  • 31.National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme—Tanzania. Annual report for 2014.
  • 32.National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme—Tanzania. Annual report for 2017.
  • 33.Yusof A, Chia YC, Hasni YM. Awareness and prevalence of mammography screening and its predictors—A cross-sectional study in a primary care clinic in Malaysia. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2014;15(19):8095–9. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.19.8095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ephraim Z, Kazwala R, Simon Mwakapuja R, Malakalinga J, Ephraim Makondo Z, Reuben Kazwala R, et al. Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Infections in Katavi Rukwa Ecosystems Health for Animals and Livelihood Improvement (HALI) Project View project Strengthening Health and Biosecurity in Tanzania by Biodetection Capacity Building View Project Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Infections in Katavi Rukwa Ecosystems (Internet). Vol. 4, Article in Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Buregyeya E, Kasasa S, Mitchell EMH. Tuberculosis infection control knowledge and attitudes among health workers in Uganda: A cross-sectional study. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2016. Aug 15;16(1). doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1740-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mnyambwa NP, Kim DJ, Ngadaya ES, Chun J, Ha SM, Petrucka P, et al. Genome sequence of Mycobacterium yongonense RT 955–2015 isolate from a patient misdiagnosed with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: First clinical detection in Tanzania. International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2018. Jun;71:82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2018.04.796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Falkinham JO. Nontuberculous mycobacteria from household plumbing of patients with nontuberculous mycobacteria disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2011. Mar;17(3):419–24. doi: 10.3201/eid1703.101510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ryu YJ, Koh WJ, Daley CL. Diagnosis and treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease: Clinicians’ perspectives. Vol. 79, Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. Korean National Tuberculosis Association; 2016. p. 74–84. doi: 10.4046/trd.2016.79.2.74 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kim HJ, Lee JS, Kwak N, Cho J, Lee CH, Han SK, et al. Role of ethambutol and rifampicin in the treatment of Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease. BMC Pulmonary Medicine. 2019. Nov 11;19(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wu ML, Aziz DB, Dartois V, Dick T. NTM drug discovery: status, gaps and the way forward. Vol. 23, Drug Discovery Today. Elsevier Ltd; 2018. p. 1502–19. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Santos A, Carneiroa S, Silvac A, Gomesd JP, Macedoa R. Nontuberculous Mycobacteria in Portugal: Trends from the last decade. Pulmology. 2022;20:17. doi: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.01.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000741.r001

Decision Letter 0

Carl Abelardo T Antonio

2 May 2022

PGPH-D-21-00419

Non-tuberculous Mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Awareness survey of front-desk healthcare workers in Northern Tanzania

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Maya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Carl Abelardo T. Antonio

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Please update the 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist"

4. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

- State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

- State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that "No legal or ethical restrictions to sharing of data for this study". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

6. The resolution of Figures are very low and somewhat difficult to read. It is important that our Editors and Peer Reviewers are able to read all parts of a submission. Please replace these figures with higher resolution copies.

7. Please remove the embedded figures from the manuscript file and upload it as tif or eps format.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I perused the manuscript and weighed the reviewers' recommendations. After careful consideration, I am inclined to follow the suggestion of the second reviewer, who raised some methodological concerns about the study.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: No additional comments. Congratulations to the authors. The manuscript contains valuable information that can be useful for other healthcare workers in the future. Looking forward to the publication of this article.

Reviewer #2: Line 37: Change “consented” to “consenting”.

Line 66: The numbered citation ‘3’ seems to be a typographical error.

Line 67: An adversative conjunction is missing to relate the two contrasting clauses of the sentence.

Line 73: The use of “and” does not seem to be appropriate.

Section on Study population and sampling procedure: The minimum required sample size targeted has not been indicated, including its basis.

Line 123: Spell out “HF”, the acronym being referred to for the first time in the document.

Line 124: The auxiliary verb “were” is missing before the word “interviewed” (but not before “consented”, which is an intransitive verb).

Line 133: The comma must follow the word “staff”, not “only”.

Section on Questionnaire administration and data collection: Provide more details on the validation process done.

Line 137: Insert “a” before “structured”.

Line 139: Insert “were” before “based”.

Line 146: Insert “the” before “variables”.

Section on Data management and statistical analysis: If p-values were generated, then the study could not just have employed descriptive statistics. Moreover, the statistical tests used (descriptive and inferential) have to be indicated.

Lines 149-150: The sentence can be simplified to “Collected data were encoded into 2010 Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets.”

Line 153: Capitalize ‘E’ in “excel”.

Line 155: Suggest rephrasing “According to this study all variations…” to “All study results…”.

Section on Results interpretation: Provide the rationale for Table 1. Cross-reference to the comment on the questionnaire validation process.

Line 178: Delete “A” before “Study identification numbers”.

Lines 186, 188: Spell out “RRH”, “DH”, and “HC”; acronyms being referred to for the first time in the document.

Lines 188-189: Suggest rephrasing “The highest number of HFs (11, 38%) was from Tanga region” to “The Tanga region had the highest number of participating HFs (11, 38%)”.

Line 190: Insert a comma after “reasons”.

Line 216: This must be Table 2; we have Table 1 in Line 170.

Table 1 (or 2, as corrected), and Figures 1-4: The information in these table and figures can be incorporated into just one master table showing the profile of the participants and their distribution according to sociodemographic variables, cadre, health facility, and region.

Line 233: Replace “An” with “The”.

Section on Pulmonary NTM disease awareness score results: A choice may to be made as to whether descriptive statistics (mean score, standard deviation, range) or inferential statistics (point and interval estimates of the mean score, p-values) would be reported. Also consider the implications for interpretation.

Lines 233-240: If association between the outcome variable and each explanatory variable is to be established, then inferential statistics (hypothesis testing) is needed; cross-reference to the comment on employing only descriptive statistics. Moreover, interesting patterns from Table 3, other than gender, are better described as part of the narrative.

Figure 5: By comparing the awareness scores across the four regions, are the scores generated by participants from each region representative of all the HCWs (at least from the four cadres) of that region?

Line 253: This must be Table 3.

Table 2 (or 3, as corrected): Indicate the statistical test/s used that generated the p-values. Also, instead of reporting the standard deviations, the interval estimates may be more meaningful given that the objective of the table entails the use of inferential statistics.

Lines 255-256: Delete “On the other hand”. Also, kindly indicate the source of the information in this sentence, as it is not part of Table 4.

Line 268: This must be Table 4.

Table 3 (or 4, as corrected): Format can still be improved; suggest text alignment to the top of the cell, and row borders or hanging indentation to delineate between items and/or responses.

Lines 283-288: Move down the sentences starting from “The current study has found…” to separate paragraph. Moreover, the implication of the observed association of awareness with (1) age, (2) experience in TB care, (3) type of HF, and (4) administrative region were not discussed; while the similarity in correlation patterns of age and work experience have been pointed out (lines 299-304), the more practical applications of these information can still be explored to the extent similar to the discussion for training (lines 290-297).

Lines 290-291: Indicate the source of the information in this sentence; cross-reference to comment on lines 255-256.

Discussion section: A discussion of results related to participant responses related to diagnosis of pulmonary NTM—similar to dedicated paragraphs for transmission (lines 308-319) and treatment (lines 321-330)—is missing.

Limitations section: If the validation process for the tool developed is a limitation, describe the nature and extent to which it may have affected the results of the study; cross-reference to comment on questionnaire administration and data collection. Moreover, indicate likely threats to validity that are linked to selection and participant response.

Conclusions and Recommendations section: This section can still be improved and expanded, following comments made on the Results and Discussion sections.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Evalyn A. Roxas

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000741.r003

Decision Letter 1

Megan Coffee

3 Aug 2022

PGPH-D-21-00419R1

Non-tuberculous Mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Awareness survey of front-desk healthcare workers in Northern Tanzania

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Togolani Godfrey Maya, 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit and is almost ready for publication, but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the minor points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Megan Coffee, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This article is very close to publication.

I would, as Reviewer 2 outlined, adjust the CI and provide clarification to statistical tests used.

In the intro and conclusion, I would try to bring some clarity to the NTM transmission, as it is one of the study questions. I would simply state that non-tuberculous mycobacteria is almost entirely from the environment and almost entirely not person-to-person, but could be in rare cases. Subsequent to the papers cited in the intro, there has been work that points to person-to-person transmission, particularly among CF patients.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-021-00963-3

I would expand discussion of existing knowledge of NTM epi in Tanzania (possibly could decrease discussion of US NTM). I would explain the what range of NTM found in Tanzania, even just the number of types found to date (ie it's not just MAC and abscessus) https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-016-1928-3/tables/4

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I don't know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: - Comments from reviewer 2 was addressed appropriately.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript was significantly improved from the original submission, in terms of content (depth of discussion), grammar, and form. Most of the comments raised in the previous round of review have also been addressed.

Still:

(1) The specific statistical tests/test criteria that generated the p-values and confidence intervals have yet to be reported.

(2) The 95% CIs are presented in an unconventional way--they appear more like standard deviations, since only one number per measure is shown. Indicate both lower and upper limits of each interval in the tables and narrative.

(3) A Data Availability Statement, detailing where the data can be accessed, must be categorically stated.

Reviewer #3: The overlapping clinical symptoms due to infection with M. tuberculosis and NTMs often leads to misdiagnosis and hence mistreatment. This study highlights the importance of awareness program among different cadres of health care workers for correct diagnosis and treatment of TB and NTM infections in various pulmonary diseases especially under limited resource settings. Also authors suggestion to addon-job training for differential diagnosis of NTMs and related awareness to all cadres of HCWs is very important and needs sincere attentions of the policy makers to include this in TB control program.

Although authors have adequately addressed the comments of the previous reviewers. I have couple of following minor queries which may be addressed for better clarity.

1. Line No 234: Please clarify what is meant here by 'experience between 1 and 5 years'?? what kind of experience is it?

2. Line 237: Please provide a range of age for defining Lower and higher ages for males and females respectively.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000741.r005

Decision Letter 2

Sabine Hermans

17 Nov 2022

PGPH-D-21-00419R2

Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Awareness survey of front-desk healthcare workers in Northern Tanzania

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Maya,

Please accept our apologies for the protracted nature of this submission and review process. Thank you for your patience. We would like to accept your manuscript; before doing so we would like to ask you to submit a version in which you report your 95% confidence intervals in the way that is customary in this research field (as a range, rather than +/-). We appreciate your concern about congestion of text and tables, however this is preferable to non-customary reporting.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please see my comments above; there is no need to submit a "response to the reviewers" document.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sabine Hermans

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Please present the 95% CIs the conventional way: Indicate both lower and upper limits of each interval in the tables and narrative.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000741.r007

Decision Letter 3

Sabine Hermans

8 Dec 2022

Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Awareness survey of front-desk healthcare workers in Northern Tanzania

PGPH-D-21-00419R3

Dear Mr Maya,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Awareness survey of front-desk healthcare workers in Northern Tanzania' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Sabine Hermans

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Ntmpd survey dataset.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Questionnaire. Survey questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES