Table 2.
Process/Outcome Indicator | Intervention Sites (n = 10) | Control Sites (n = 2) | OR (95% CI) | P Value | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | P Value | Sample Size for Regression |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Presumptive TB Cases | |||||||
1 Proportion of presumptive TB cases with a sputum smeara,b | 64.70% (4119/6366) | 12.66% (244/1928) | 12.65 (5.60, 28.55) | <.001 | N/A | ||
2 Proportion of presumptive TB cases with an HIV testa | 63.37% (4034/6366) | 5.29% (102/1928) | 30.97 (5.11, 187.94) | <.001 | N/A | ||
3 Proportion of smear-positive TB cases | 7.97% (433/5436) | 19.67% (48/244) | 0.35 (0.19-0.66) | <.001 | 0.39 (0.20–0.76) | .005 | 4508 |
4 Proportion of smear-positive new TB cases started on treatmentc | 87.76% (380/433) | 50.00% (24/48) | 7.17 (1.98, 26.03) | .003 | 7.59 (2.19, 26.33) | .001 | 478 |
TB Patients | |||||||
5 Proportion of TB patients tested for HIV | 98.75% (475/481) | 97.78% (44/45) | 1.80 (0.38, 8.49) | .458 | 1.78 (0.35, 8.79) | .498 | 509 |
6 Proportion of TB/HIV coinfected started on ART | 66.67% (132/198) | 72.73% (8/11) | 0.75 (0.33, 1.72) | .497 | 0.77 (0.34, 1.78) | .545 | 209 |
7 Proportion of TB patients who are smear or bacteriologically positive | 71.73% (345/481) | 77.78% (35/45) | 0.72 (0.33, 1.59) | .380 | 0.94 (0.41, 2.18) | .888 | 517 |
8 Proportion of TB patients who are sputum smear negative or extrapulmonary TB cases | 10.81% (52/481) | 11.11% (5/45) | 0.97 (0.68, 1.38) | .866 | 0.73 (0.48, 1.12) | .152 | 517 |
9 Proportion of new TB patients who completed or cured (of all those with a treatment outcome recorded) | 42.21% (176/417) | 13.33% (6/45) | 4.74 (2.03, 11.12) | <.001 | 4.89 (2.24, 10.67) | <.001 | 453 |
10 Proportion of new TB patients who were lost to follow-up (of all those with a treatment outcome recorded) | 20.38% (85/417) | 86.67% (39/45) | 0.03 (0.01, 0.11) | <.001 | 0.04 (0.01, 0.09) | <.001 | 453 |
Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; CI, confidence interval; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; N/A, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; TB, tuberculosis.
a For indicators 1–2, individual analysis was not possible because these indicators use 2 separate data sources that were not linked at the individual level.
b Laboratory tests conducted during outreach in the intervention arm (N = 1317) were excluded from the numerator because these patients did not have a MF5 completed.
c For proportion of smear-positive patients started on treatment, the analysis did not adjust for HIV status because missing data for this variable dropped the control arm sample size by 60% from 48 to 19.