Table 3. Outcomes of included studies in the systematic review on cash interventions to improve tuberculosis clinical outcomes, 1991–2017.
| Author, year | Primary outcome |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome indicatora | Sample size |
No. patients of with primary outcome |
OR (95% CI) | Adjusted covariates | Secondary outcomes (intervention versus control) | ||||
| Intervention | Control | Intervention |
Control | ||||||
| Tuberculosis-specific interventions | |||||||||
| Farmer et al.,17 1991 | Microbiologic cure | 30 | 30 | 30 | 13 | 79.08 (4.42–1 413.33) | None | Sputum positivity at 6 months (0% vs 13%); pulmonary symptoms at 1 year (7% vs 43%); weight gained during first year (10.4 lbs vs 1.7 lbs); return to work after 1 year (93% vs 47%); 18-month mortality (0% vs 10%) | |
| Chirico et al.,20 2011 | Treatment success | 804 | 847 | 750 | 666 | 1.19 (1.03–1.37) | None | None | |
| Rocha et al.,21 2011 | Treatment completion | 307 | 1554 | 298 | 1414 | 3.28 (1.65–6.51) | None | Health insurance registration (98% vs 36%); contact screening (96% vs 82%); rapid MDR-tuberculosis testing (92% vs 67%); HIV testing (97% vs 31%); contact preventive therapy initiation (88% vs 39%) and completion (87% vs 27%) | |
| Ciobanu et al.,18 2014 | Treatment success | 2378 | 2492 | 2081 | 1964 | 2.00 (1.61–2.22)b | Place of residence, sex, age, occupation, homelessness, HIV, type of tuberculosis | Treatment failure (2% vs 5%); loss to follow-up (5% vs 10%); death (5% vs 6%) | |
| Lu et al.,19 2015 | Treatment success | 3290 | 2413 | NR | NR | 1.65 (1.40–1.95)b | Gender, age, occupation, per capita GDP of district, density of population, tuberculosis specialists per 100 patients | None | |
| Ukwaja et al.,16 2017 | Treatment success | 121 | 173 | 104 | 123 | 2.30 (1.20–4.30)b | Sex, age, rural/urban residence, new/previously treated tuberculosis, HIV, smear-positivity | Loss to follow-up (5% vs 20%); transferred out (1% vs 0%); death (7% vs 6%); smear negative at 2 months (88 vs 92) | |
| Wingfield et al.,15 2017 | Treatment success | 135 | 147 | 87 | 78 | 1.60 (0.99–2.59) | None | Loss to follow-up (16% vs 18%); death (4% vs 4%) | |
| Tuberculosis-sensitive interventions | |||||||||
| Torrens et al.,22 2016 | Microbiologic cure | 5788 | 1467 | 4752 |
1128 | 1.07 (1.04–1.11)b | Age, ethnicity, diabetes mellitus, HIV, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, self-administered treatment, rural area, number of rooms in house, inappropriate floor material, baseline household monthly per capita income < US$20, illiteracy | None | |
CI: confidence interval; GDP: gross domestic product; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; lbs: pounds; MDR: multidrug resistant; NR: not reported; OR: odds ratio; US$: United States dollars.
a The definitions of the outcomes were: treatment success was positive clinical outcome; treatment completion was if a study did not report treatment success; and microbiologic cure was if a study did not report treatment success or treatment completion.
b Derived from multivariable regression models.