Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Aug 31;15(8):e0237865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237865

Analysis of the economic burden of diagnosis and treatment on patients with tuberculosis in Bao’an district of Shenzhen City, China

Yixiang Huang 1,#, Jianying Huang 2,#, Xiaoting Su 1, Liang Chen 3, Jianwei Guo 1, Weiqing Chen 4,*, Lingling Zhang 5
Editor: Hemant Deepak Shewade6
PMCID: PMC7458315  PMID: 32866187

Abstract

Background

Illness-related costs experienced by tuberculosis patients produce a severe economic impact on households, especially poor families. Few studies have investigated the full costs, including direct and indirect costs, at the patient and household levels in south-east China.

Methods

A case follow-up study was conducted in the Bao'an district of Shenzhen City, China. Eligible new and previously treated individuals with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) during January 1st 2013 to June 30th 2013 were enrolled. Medical and non-medical costs as well as income loss were calculated in diagnosis and treatment periods, respectively. Factors associated with costs due to TB diagnosis, treatment and TB care (diagnosis + treatment) were explored respectively with a linear regression model.

Results

Of the total 514 TB patients enrolled, 95% were from the migrant population, and 65% were males, with a mean age of 32.25 (±10.11). The median costs due to TB diagnosis and TB treatment were 79 United States dollar (USD), 748USD (6.2897 China Yuan (CNY) = 1USD, 2013) per patient, respectively. The median costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment) per patient was 1218USD, corresponding to 26% of patients’ annual income pre-illness. Those who visited more times to health facilities, hospitalized, received higher education, or occupied in national civil servant/services/retired staff might expense more before diagnosis. Costs due to TB treatment was significantly higher among migrant patients, sputum smear positive patients, and widowed/divorced population. Factors associated with less total costs were native patients, fewer times of visiting to health-care facilities and those with no hospitalization history due to TB.

Conclusions

Although a free TB control policy is in force, patients with TB are still facing a heavy economic burden. More available interventions to reduce the financial burden on tuberculosis patients are urgently needed.

1. Background

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide as well as being the leading cause from a single infectious agent (more than HIV/AIDS). According to 2018 global estimates, there were estimated 10 million new cases of TB and 1.2 million TB deaths in 2018 [1]. The high prevalence of TB is always a critical public health problem in China: China has the second highest number of cases of TB in the world right after India, with 866,000 identified cases in 2018 [1]. Since 1990, the World Health Organization(WHO)-recommended directly observed treatment + short course chemotherapy (DOTS) strategy has been implemented by the Chinese government under the National Tuberculosis Control Program to control this epidemic [2].

Many investigators have pointed out that both the TB patients and their households bear a heavy economic burden under the free DOTS control strategy [3, 4]. TB is a well-known poverty-related disease, usually related to the disadvantages of socio-economic status. In particular, among those who come from rural and poor districts, the scarcity of health resources and poor economic condition place them in a more serious situation [5]. Delayed and repeated visits to clinics before diagnosis, the over-prescribing of drugs, and prolonged treatment are common [6]. Patients bear too much economic burden which precludes them from further adhering to treatment and results in treatment failure [4].

There have been many studies on the cost-effectiveness of different TB control strategies, focused mainly on the effectiveness of medical insurance for coping with the costs of illness as well as patient compliance with drug regimens [4, 7]. However, far fewer studies have measured the costs to patients and households or the full costs, including direct and indirect costs, from the onset of symptoms to the end of treatment in south-east China. Therefore, the present study was performed to evaluate the out-of-pocket direct costs as well as productivity lost related to illness. Potential factors associated with these costs were also explored.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study setting

Shenzhen City is one of the most prosperous regions in China, with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of nearly 1450 billion CNY in 2013. Its estimated population is over 10.5 million, with the migrant population constituting72.7% while this rate is 87.0% in Bao’an district of the total regional population according to the Shenzhen statistical yearbook 2013. The mean household income in the region was 6,656.79 USD in 2012 according to the statistical yearbook 2013. The rapid economic growth in the city attracts numerous young migrant workers, mostly from remote poor areas exposed to substandard conditions such as lower societal status, poor standard of living, and less accessibility to health services, thus creating favorable conditions for infection with TB. Although analysis of recent data has shown a decreasing incidence of TB in the Shenzhen region, its prevalence in the Bao'an district, where a heavy concentration of migrant workers contributes to a high TB case load, is still high.

The general hospitals were the main place to find TB cases and the Center for Prevention and Cure of chronic diseases (CPC) were the local designated TB facilities in the national TB program networks, providing treatment and managing the TB cases. The health-care providers were obligate to refer the suspected cases to CPC and the basic information of suspected cases were sent to CPC. If the cases did not consult to CPC in time, the workers of CPC would contact the suspected case. In 2010, the prevalence rate of smear positive of native population was 19.44 per 100,000, and that of the migrant population was 59.96 per 100,000, and the cure rates for native and migrant patients were 94.79% and 82.91%, respectively [8].

The DOTS program is implemented by public health facilities for non-inpatients TB cases [9], where patients have free access to diagnostic and treatment services. The CPC is the institution authorized to provide TB diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring, with a radiologic imaging studies (X-ray) and sputum smear tests while diagnosed for free, and 5 sputum smear tests and anti-TB drugs for 6–8 months during treatment for free. Patients must regularly return to CPC every month for health checks after starting to take anti-TB drugs until the treatment is over. Generally, the numbers of times of subsequent consultations are 5 and 7 to newly-patents and previously treated patients respectively. Except free TB drugs provided by CPC, the subsidiary drugs like hepatinica, gastric medicine, and immunopotentiator etc. prescribed every month and auxiliary examinations including X-ray and hepatic, renal function tests. are not free.

2.2. Study design and population

A case follow-up study was conducted in the Bao'an district with an ongoing NTP-DOTS project. Newly diagnosed and previously treated TB patients (not known to be drug resistant) aged 15–59 years old, who registered in the CPC during 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013, were included and were followed up until the completion of a 6- to 8-month treatment course. Those with severe co-morbidities such as AIDS, diabetes, lung cancer and those who refused to accept investigation were excluded. Patients aged above 59 were excluded considering the elderly may have more respiratory system diseases affecting the result of our research and those with MDR-TB were excluded too. Transferred-in patients were also excluded from the study, since information on previous costs was not available.

2.3. Data collection

All eligible cases would undergo five (new patients) or seven (previously treated patients) interviews at the Department of Tuberculosis Prevention and Control in Bao'an CPC. A structured questionnaire was used, covering general demographic and socio-economic characteristics, disease history, care-seeking process, treatment behaviors, and costs due to TB diagnosis and treatment. Self-reported economic status information was collected based on different localities with various levels of development. The first interview took place at the first month of intensive phase of treatment, when patients’ retrospective care-seeking history and related expenditures, including costs due to TB diagnosis starting from the time point when the patients experienced the first symptoms, and the intensive phase related costs, were collected. The other four or six interviews were conducted monthly when patients came for regular re-examinations. The patients’ TB care experiences and transportation fee, supplementary food cost, and foregone income of patients and companions were collected in follow-ups.

A graduate student with two locally recruited research assistants, health workers who had participated in a standardized training session, conducted those interviews. A logic check of all data collected was undertaken to determine if there were any contradictions or missing information. Those contradictions or missing information would be asked again in a subsequent interview. We also evaluated the quality of collected data by verifying the routine health information system.

2.4. Measurements and definitions

We analyzed the economic burden from TB patients’ perspective. The primary outcome variables were the median expense incurred during illness. Information on costs was ascertained for different periods, summarized as costs due to TB diagnosis, TB treatment and TB care (diagnosis and treatment).

The operational definition of various costs and indicators were summarized in Table 1. Direct costs included all costs of patients and companions attributable to their illness [10]. Indirect costs referred to the income lost by patients and their companions associated with time lost off work. The income lost before diagnosis was calculated based on each patient’s monthly wage prior to the onset of TB. The income lost by companions before diagnosis was not included in the analysis, since only a few such losses occurred. The time spent on daily drug intake was also not calculated, because 441(85.80%) of patients took drugs on their way to work or the community health-care stations close to their homes by walk or bike. The costs due to TB diagnosis of those who were diagnosed at CPC immediately without consulting to other facilities, were not calculated.

Table 1. Operational definition of study participants and TB treatment cost in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013.

Terminology Definition
Costs due to TB diagnosis Costs between symptom onset and diagnosed as TB
Costs due to TB Treatment Costs from treatment initiation up to treatment completion
Direct medical costs Expenses of medical examinations and medicines linked to TB diagnosis and treatment
Direct non-medical costs Costs for transport, food expenditures, nutrition supplements due to TB
Direct cost Direct medical costs (clinical and hospitalization expenses) + direct non-medical costs (transportation to health facilities and supplementary food)
    Indirect costs Patients and companions’ lost income due to TB-related time off work during the TB episode. Assuming 30 working days per month, we evaluated the value in terms of money for each day, and indirect costs before diagnosis was calculated as the value per day multiplied by the length of time off work due to illness. Patients were asked about the actual lost income that they and their companions had experienced due to absence from their usual income-generating activities at every interview. These monthly income reductions were then summed as indirect costs during TB treatment.
Costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment) Direct costs + indirect costs
The degree of symptoms at diagnosis The patients self-reported with different symptoms at diagnosis were divided into four categories. 1. None: no symptoms; 2. mild: with symptoms included cough, expectoration and dyspnea, night sweat, and debilitation; 3. Moderate: symptoms with fever and chest distress; 4. severe: symptoms like hemoptysis.
Interruption of treatment Treatment interruption is defined as any interruption of treatment for at least one day but for < 8 consecutive weeks

The economic burden was then analyzed as a proportion of patients’ total annual income. The free services provided during diagnosis and treatments were not included in the medical costs. Information about costs after diagnosis was extracted from the information system of the study facility. Information on costs covered by insurance could not be obtained, since the insurance had not been settled at the end of the interview.

2.5. Data analysis

The data were double-entered with EpiData 3.1 software (EpiData Association, Odense, Denmark) for each patient, and cost summaries and analyses were performed by SPSS 20.0 software. Continuous variables such as direct costs, indirect costs were summarized as medians (IQR), while categorical variables were summarized as proportions. A linear regression (forward stepwise) was used to build a predictive model for factors related to costs due to TB diagnosis, treatment and care respectively. The costs were log transformed as they were not normally distributed. Association was summarized using Beta coefficient (95% CI), P-value less than 0.05 were significant. Considering the multicollinearity in predictor variables, we calculated variance inflation factor (VIF) at the same time [11]. If VIF was less than 10, then the predictor variables were included in the linear model.

Considering that applying and interpreting the results of hypothesis testing in a log-transformed data on actual data (non-log transformed) might lead to bias [12], we also conducted a confounder-adjusted association between costs and predictor variables using generalized linear model (logistic regression). The costs were divided as binomial variables based on median value. Association was summarized using coefficient (95% CI), P-value less than 0.05 was significant.

2.6. Ethics approval

This study was approved by the research and ethics committee of the School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, China. The ethical approval number was 2012-SPH021, date 9/28/ 2012. Also, permission was obtained from the study site. A signed informed consent was obtained from all patients before being interviewed.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-demographic characteristics and care-seeking behaviors

The present study surveyed 533 eligible TB patients with no co-morbidity, 19 (4%) of whom were lost to follow-up, one of whom died from another disease, and 18 of whom moved to other provinces. The average age of them was 29.6±10.2 years, with 14 males and 5 females. One patient suffered from hemoptysis, which was defined as a severe symptom in our study. The others were suffered from mild or moderate symptoms like cough, chest distress and fever etc. The socio-demographic and care-seeking behaviors characteristics of 514 patients were summarized in Table 2. The mean monthly income of patients before illness was 448USD. 34%(176) patients were identified when they accepted health check-ups required by their work units, and were then transferred to the CPC.

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of TB patients enrolled in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen, China, 2013 (N = 514).

Variable Number %
Age (years)
    < 20 20 3.89
    20~30 238 46.3
    30~40 143 27.82
    40~50 70  13.62
    >50 43 8.37
Gender
    Male 336 65.37
    Female 178 34.63
Marital status
    Single 180 35.02
    Married 308 59.92
    Other (divorced, cohabiting) 26 5.06
Education
    Illiterate or primary school 63 12.26
    Junior high school 220 42.80
    Senior high school 169 32.88
    Junior college and above 62 12.06
Occupation
    Factory worker 316 61.48
    Individual business 46 8.95
    Other (include company stuff/service personnel) 99 19.26
    Unemployed 53 10.31
Residence
    Native 26 5.06
    Migrant 488 94.94
Self-reported economic status*
    High 30 5.84
    Medium 323 62.84
    Low 161 31.32
Annual household income (USD)
    <795 13 2.53
    795–2385 44 8.56
    2385–4770 114 22.18
    4770–9539 133 25.88
    9539–15,899 113 21.98
    >15,899 97 18.87
Insurance
    Labor insurance 186 36.19
    Self-paying 305 59.34
    Unclear 23 4.47
First visited a public facility
    Yes 48 9.34
    No 466 90.66
Type of TB
    Newly diagnosed patients 484 94.16
    Previously treated patients 30 5.84
The way of discovering TB presence
    Health check-up 176 34.24
    Visiting doctors because of developing symptoms 338 65.76
Number of times visiting health-care facilities
    < = 2 214 63.31
    3~6 101 29.88
    > = 7 23 6.8
Delay between symptom onset and first consultation
    < = 7 152 44.97
    7~14 38 11.24
    14~21 42 12.43
    > = 21 106 31.36

* Self-reported economic status was based on the local condition of patients’ domiciles.

3.2. Costs due to TB diagnosis, TB treatment and TB care

The costs and component of different of TB episode were showing in Tables 3 and 4. 338 patients incurred costs due to consultation before diagnosed as TB. While 22 patients were admitted to the hospital. The direct costs accounted for 96.08% of total costs due to TB diagnosis, while accounted for 57.9% during TB treatment (Table 4).

Table 3. Costs due to TB diagnosis, treatment and care (diagnosis and treatment) among TB patients during different episodes of treatment in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013(USD).

Costs due to TB diagnosis and treatment TB diagnosis (N = 514) TB treatment (N = 514) TB care(N = 514)
Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Median (IQR)
Direct medical costs 23.6(0–99.4) 5421.5(464.7–617.8) 600.4(510.1–734.9)
Direct non-medical costs(travel) 0 (0–3.2) 149.9(29.3–453.4) 156.5(33.7–411.7)
Direct costs(all) 23.8 (0–111.3) 748.5 (567.4–986.8) 833 .4(608.9–1132.3)
Indirect costs (wage/income lost) 0 (0.0–0.0) 151.8(50.4–844.6) 157.4 (56.8–854.5)
Total costs 23.8 (0–113.0) 1074.5 (744.5–1819.6) 1218.0 (826.1–1963.4)

IQR: Interquartile range.

aAverage China Yuan (CNY) to USD conversion rate in 2013 (1USD = 6.2897 CNY).

Table 4. Contribution of each component of costs due to TB diagnosis/treatment/care as a proportion of total costs among TB patients during different episodes of treatment in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013.

Costs due to TB diagnosis and treatment as a proportion of total costs TB diagnosis(N = 514) TB treatment(N = 514) TB care (N = 514)
% % %
Total costs 100 100 100
Direct medical costs 93.12 38.43 43.44
Direct non-medical costs(travel) 2.96 19.47 17.96
Direct costs(all) 96.08 57.90 61.40
Indirect costs (wage/income lost) 3.92 42.10 38.60

The main component of medical costs during TB treatment was examinations and non-TB drugs (liver/kidney protection drugs and immunopotentiators), accounting for 55% and 40% of medical costs. The direct costs of intensive phase (the first two month) and consolidation phase (the next 4 or 6 month) were 210.58(164.87,279.66)USD and 516.48(391.91,703.39) USD respectively. The direct costs of consolidation phase accounted for 70.7% of total costs due to TB treatment.

The median costs due to TB care was 1218USD (Table 3), which corresponds to 26%(1218/4685) of annual individual incomes before TB illness (4770USD). The direct costs accounted for 61% of the total costs, and the ratio of direct to indirect costs was 1.58%. About 88.2% of costs were encountered after the patients were diagnosed and accepting free DOTS treatment.

3.3. The association of costs due to TB diagnosis among TB patients

Patients who were in hospital due to TB generated more costs (β = -1.13, P<0.0001)(Table 5). It seemed that the less number of times visiting to health-care facilities (< = 2 vs > = 7,β = -0.95, P<0.0001; 2~6 vs > = 7, β = -0.46, P<0.0001), the less costs incurred.

Table 5. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB diagnosis and various predictor variables using linear regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (n = 514).

Predictors in the model Beta coefficient (95% CI) P value
Number of times visiting health-care facilities
    < = 2 -0.95 -1.18,-0.73 < 0.001
    2~6 -0.46 -0.65,-0.27 < 0.001
    > = 7 Ref Ref Ref
Whether in hospital due to TB diagnosis
    Yes Ref Ref Ref
    No -1.13 -1.14,-0.95 < 0.001
Education
    Primary/illiterate Ref Ref Ref
    Junior high school 0.10 -0.03,0.24 0.139
    Senior high school 0.11 -0.04,0.25 0.146
    College or above 0.24 0.07,0.41 0.007
Occupation
    Workers Ref Ref Ref
    Individual business 0.026 -0.12,0.17 0.731
    Others national civil servant/services /retired staff etc.) 0.12 0.002,0.24 0.046
    Unemployed -0.07 -0.22,0.8 0.341

Linear regression was done after conversion to log scale.

Only significant variables were presented.

Ref-reference.

We found those who received higher education(β = 0.24,P = 0.007) or occupied in national civil servant/services /retired staff (β = 0.12,P = 0.046)might expense more before diagnosis compared with the primary/illiterate and factory workers. In the corresponding generalized linear regression, number of times visiting health-care facilities (β = 4.17,P<0.001)and education were found to be related with costs due to diagnosis statically significant. Gender(β = 0.78,P = 0.021) was found to be an independent factor related costs due to TB diagnosis in the logistic regression (S1 Table).

3.4 The association of costs due to TB treatment among TB patients

Final model for independent predictors for costs due to TB treatment was shown in Table 6. Migrant population might have more costs during the TB treatment compared with native population (β = 0.15,P = 0.006). Those who widowed/divorced(β = 0.17,P = 0.049) incurred more costs after diagnosis as TB. Patients perceived that the TB imposed economic burden to household might have more expenses on the treatment r(β = -0.07,P = 0.043)).The status of sputum smear test at the time of diagnosis was positive generated more costs compared to the negative (β = 0.08,P = 0.021).

Table 6. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB treatment and various predictor variables using linear regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (n = 514).

Predictors in the model Beta coefficient (95% CI) P value
Sputum smear status
    Negative Ref Ref Ref
    Positive 0.08 (0.036,0.128) < 0.001
Household registration
    Native patients Ref Ref Ref
    Migrant patients 0.15 (0.043–0.254) 0.006
Reported-household economic burden
    Heavy Ref Ref Ref
    Moderate -0.07 (-0.13,-0.02) 0.043
    No burden -0.01 (-0.07,-0.05 0.73
Marital status
    Unmarried Ref Ref Ref
    Married -0.005 (-0.06,0.05) 0.860
    Widowed/divorced 0.17 (0.01,0.34) 0.049
    Others -0.02 (-0.15,0.12) 0.820

Linear regression was done after conversion to log scale.

Only significant variables were presented.

Ref-reference.

In the corresponding generalized linear regression, only sputum smear status adopted in the model. (P<0.0001). (S2 Table).

3.5 The association of costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment) among TB patients

Final model for independent predictors for costs due to TB care(diagnosis + treatment) was shown in Table 7. Patients with no history of hospitalization(β = -0.26,P<0.001) and fewer visits to health facilities (β = -0.15,P = 0.011) were independent predictors for less costs. The native people (β = 0.13,P = 0.038) incurred less costs of TB care. Sputum smear status and number of times visiting health-care facilities were also included in the model in the corresponding logistic regression (S3 Table).

Table 7. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment) and various predictor variables using linear regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (n = 514).

Predictors in the model Beta coefficient 95% CI P value
Whether in hospital due to TB diagnosis
    Yes -0.26 -0.38,-0.15 < 0.001
    No Ref Ref Ref
Household registration
    Native patients Ref Ref Ref
    Migrant patients 0.13 0.01,0.26 0.038
Number of times visiting health-care facilities
    < = 2 -0.15 -0.26,-0.03 0.011
    2~6 -0.1 -0.22,0.02 0.094
    > = 7 Ref Ref Ref

Linear regression was done after conversion to log scale.

Only significant variables were presented.

Ref-reference.

4. Discussion

4.1 Summary of key findings

This study evaluated the economic burden borne by TB patients in Shenzhen City during their illness and explored the influence factors related to the costs. There were some key findings from this study. The tuberculosis patients still faced a high economic burden during TB diagnosis and treatment. Direct costs accounted a larger proportion of total costs. More costs occurred during TB treatment when accepting free DOTS treatment. Those who visited more times to health facilities, hospitalized, received higher education, or occupied in national civil servant/services/retired staff might expense more before diagnosis. Costs due to TB treatment was significantly higher among migrant patients, sputum smear positive patients. Native patients, those with fewer times of visiting to health-care facilities and with on hospitalization history due to TB costs less.

4.2 Discussion of key findings

Under the DOTS program, the CPC provides free treatments amounting to 102.07USD. The median cost due to TB care was 1218USD, corresponding to 26% of annual personal income, constituting a considerable part of their disposable income after payment of fixed costs such as rent, electricity, and water etc. The total costs found in this study were far higher than those in Africa, India, and rural China [1315]. These differences could partly be explained by the differences in purchasing power among these countries/districts, the omission of some cost elements in these studies or reduced recall bias in our study. Over a quarter of patients reported that the economic burden of cure was heavy. Some authors have concluded that total costs due to TB care account for a higher percentage of their annual income [13, 1618].

Direct costs were still substantial, of which non-TB drugs and auxiliary examinations were the most significant cost items [1921]. Additional drugs like protecting the liver/kidney or symptomatic treatment, and examinations must be paid for. It appeared that these costs led to the high costs during the treatment period, indicating that there might be over-prescription and over-service, as reported in other studies [22, 23]. About 37% (190/514) of the patients were unemployed or suspended from work after contracting TB and had no income, while the others remained employed and experienced income loss due to monthly doctor visits. Thus, departure from daily money-earning activities had a negative economic impact on patients with TB, resulting in impoverishment and worsening of their living situations [19]. However, the indirect costs in these cases might be underestimated, since the value of time loss due to daily drug intake was not calculated, and some patients reported that they had no clear concept of their reduced income due to absences from the workplace.

Costs due to TB diagnosis were much lower compared with the costs during TB treatment. This is consistent with reports from other studies [24, 25]. A review of the financial burden of TB indicated that half of total costs were incurred before treatment [26]. The possible reason may be that many patients in this study were found by health check-ups required by their work units. Those suspected patients were initially referred to the CPC for diagnosis, and the first X-ray and sputum smear test were free for them. This could reduce the delay of diagnosis and number of times visiting health-care facilities, as a result, less costs occurred during this phase. Inefficiencies in public health facilities and control services at private facilities are two main reasons for prolonged delay and increased costs of TB diagnosis [27, 28]. We found number of times visiting health-care facilities and hospitalization was one of the factors affecting costs due to TB diagnosis, with a mean of 3 visits to different health-care facilities. Only 35.6% of patients reported that they were diagnosed with suspected TB at their first visit, and the rest were informed that they had pneumonia, pleurisy, upper respiratory infection, and so on. Consistent with our study, other investigators pointed out that early diagnosis of TB reduced costs while achieving treatment success [29, 30]. The total number of registered active TB cases were 1317, included 76(5.8%) native case and 1241(94.2%) migrant cases in Bao’an district in 2013 [31]. In our study, 95% were migrant cases, and about 80% of patients were factory workers or service staffs. We found that migrant patients faced much costs during TB care. This may be owing to the different modes of payment and free strategy. We find that patients who were better educated and occupied in national civil servant/services or retired staff may produce more costs before diagnosis. Those patients may have a good economic condition and care more about their health condition. The amount of sputum bacteria is an important factor affecting the outcome of treatment. Studies have shown that the higher the amount of sputum bacteria in the first sputum test, the worse effectiveness of treatment [32]. We find that sputum smear positive patients may have higher expenditures during TB treatment episodes due to a longer treatment period and more complicated conditions.

4.3 Policy and practice implications

Some measures can be taken to reduce the high financial burden of TB patients and to improve the performance of TB control programme. Given that under the current DOTS strategy in China, TB case were detected through passive case finding method, it is imperative to build an efficient coordination mechanism between referral hospitals and national TB programme. Further, it is also urgent to strengthen the consciousness and capacity of grass-roots public facilities to transfer suspected TB patients to better-equipped hospitals through improved work motivation to shorten the pathway for TB diagnosis and reduce the costs. Finally, active case finding may be shorten the delay of diagnosis, to reduce costs.

Migrant populations were less likely to be covered by social insurance, which might cause delays due to their health seeking behaviors [33] and more costs occurred during treatment, Hence, the migrant needs to be treated equally under social health coverage. Some subsidies provided to migrant tuberculosis may be effectively enhance the treatment compliance and reduce the costs owing to poor therapeutic effect [34].

Lacking of low ledge about tuberculosis symptoms and policy of TB prevention and treatment was the common factors related patients delay [35]. Those who visited more times to health facilities before diagnosis incurred more economic burden. It is necessary to strengthen publicity and education, especially among the migrant population.

4.4 Strengths and limitations

Fewer studies have measured the costs from the patients’ perspective or the full costs, including direct and indirect costs, from the onset of symptoms to the end of treatment in south-east China. This study explored the full costs due to TB diagnosis and treatment. It is necessary to help decision makers understand the patient's economic situation and formulate a reasonable policy to control tuberculosis. In addition, the study population is representative of most TB patients in Shenzhen City, because about 50% of all cases under DOTS came from the study site. The re-treatment rate in our study was 5.84%, which is similar to that reported in other studies, with a re-treatment rate of 6.7% in Shenzhen [36] and 6.4% in other provinces in China [37]. This indicates that our study was acceptably representative of the treatment conditions for TB patients in Shenzhen specifically and China generally.

Our study does have some limitations. First, our study only investigated the economic burden brought by TB in a part of population. Those with severe co-morbidities such as AIDS, diabetes, and lung cancer and older than 59 were excluded. Therefore, our findings may be suitable for parts of TB patients who had the same condition as the cases in our study. Second, in our study, we did not survey the information regarding companion costs although it may not have much impact on the results since most TB patients in China did not need to be accompanied during the treatment. Third, we collected the range of the household's pre-TB annual income of every patient instead the exact number. As a result, we are not able to conduct the analysis regarding catastrophic cost. Four, recall and reporting bias could not be avoided due to self-reported costs and personal income.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, patients face heavy expenditures due to the costs of TB care, which accounted for 26% of patients’ annual income. Costs were not equally distributed over time. In the TB treatment period, the costs are highest, exacerbating the problem of affordability. Free TB drugs are not the same as free treatment, and non-TB drugs, examinations, and loss of income are important considerations for patients. The income loss among all patients averaged 157 (57–855)USD. More visits to health-care facilities generated more out-of-pocket costs. Patients who had severe symptoms and re-treated patients bore a heavier burden. To avoid high costs, more attention should be paid to TB patients, even under the DOTS strategy. TB patients need testing methods with higher sensitivity, higher specificity, and lower costs to reduce their need for visits to health-care facilities. They also need more instructions to improve their adherence to treatment which may contribute to lower re-treatment rates.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB diagnosis and various predictor variables using logistic regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (N = 514).

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB diagnosis and various predictor variables using logistic regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (N = 514).

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB care and various predictor variables using logistic regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (N = 514).

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Summary of independent predictors associated with costs due to TB diagnosis and treatment and care(diagnosis +treatment) in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (n = 514).

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants who responded to our questionnaires and the TB doctors who participated in the questionnaire survey. We also express our deep gratitude to the staffs of the Bao’an Chronic Disease Prevention and Cure Hospital and the Center for TB Control of Guangdong Province.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This project was funded by the National Major Science and Technology Programs in the "Twelfth Five-Year" Plan period (No. 2012ZX10004903). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Global tuberculosis report 2019. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
  • 2.China Tuberculosis Control Collaboration. The effect of tuberculosis control in China [J]. Lancet 2004, 364, 417–422. 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16764-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Liu Y.; Xu C.H.; Wang Z.Y.; et al. [A cross-sectional study on economic burden of pulmonary tuberculosis cases from designated tuberculosis hospital]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2019, 40, 559–564 [article in Chinese]. 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2019.05.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chen S.; Zhang H.; Pan Y.; et al. Are free anti-tuberculosis drugs enough? An empirical study from three cities in China [J]. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. 2015, 4, 47 10.1186/s40249-015-0080-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Stracker N.; Hanrahan C.; Mmolawa L.; et al. Risk factors for catastrophic costs associated with tuberculosis in rural South Africa. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2019, 23, 756–763. 10.5588/ijtld.18.0519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li Y.; Ehiri J.; Tang S.; et al. Factors associated with patient, and diagnostic delays in Chinese TB patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 156 10.1186/1741-7015-11-156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Qiu S.; Pan H.; Zhang S.; et al. Is tuberculosis treatment really free in China? A study comparing two areas with different management models. PLoS One. 2015, 10, e0126770 10.1371/journal.pone.0126770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Guan H.Y.; Yang Y.Z.; Tan W.G.; et al. Effect evaluation of Shenzhen tuberculosis control and prevention program implementation from 2001 to 2010 [J]. Chin. J. Anti-tuberculosis. 2013, 9, 729–737. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Liu J.H.; Zhang L.; Lu T.W.; et al. TB control strategy of the preliminary analysis in Bao'an District [J]. Prog. Mod. Biomed. 2010, 21, 4116–4117. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.de Cuevas R.M.; Lawson L.; Al-Sonboli N.; et al. Patients direct costs to undergo TB diagnosis. Infect. Dis Poverty. 2016, 5, 24 10.1186/s40249-016-0117-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vatcheva, K P. and Lee M, Multicollinearity in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology: Open Access, 2016. 06(02) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Feng C., et al. , Log-transformation and its implications for data analysis. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry, 2014. 26(2): p. 105–9. 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.02.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ukwaja K.N.; Modebe O.; Igwenyi C.; et al. The economic burden of tuberculosis care for patients and households in Africa: a systematic review [J]. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2012, 16, 733–739. 10.5588/ijtld.11.0193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Suen S.C.; Bendavid E.; Goldhaber-Fiebert J.D. Cost-effectiveness of improvements in diagnosis and treatment accessibility for tuberculosis control in India. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2015, 19, 1115–1124. 10.5588/ijtld.15.0158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pan H.Q.; Bele S.; Feng Y.; et al. Analysis of the economic burden of diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis patients in rural China [J]. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2013, 17, 1575–1580. 10.5588/ijtld.13.0144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gospodarevskaya E.; Tulloch O.; Bunga C.; et al. Patient costs during tuberculosis treatment in Bangladesh and Tanzania: the potential of shorter regimens [J]. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2014, 18, 810–817. 10.5588/ijtld.13.0391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hu D.; Long Q.; Chen J.; Wang X.; Huang F.; Ji J.S. Factors influencing hospitalization rates and inpatient cost of patients with tuberculosis in Jiangsu Province, China: an uncontrolled before and after study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Onazi O.; Gidado M.; Onazi M.; et al. Estimating the cost of TB and its social impact on TB patients and their households. Public Health Action. 2015, 5, 127–131. 10.5588/pha.15.0002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tanvejsilp P.; Loeb M.; Dushoff J.; Xie F. Healthcare resource uses and out-of-pocket expenses associated with pulmonary TB treatment in Thailand. Pharmacoecon. Open. 2018, 2, 297–308. 10.1007/s41669-017-0053-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pedrazzoli D.; Siroka A.; Boccia D.; et al. How affordable is TB care? Findings from a nationwide TB patient cost survey in Ghana. Trop. Med. Int. Health. 2018, 23, 870–878. 10.1111/tmi.13085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Asres A.; Jerene D.; Deressa W. Pre- and post-diagnosis costs of tuberculosis to patients on Directly Observed Treatment Short course in districts of southwestern Ethiopia: a longitudinal study. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2018, 37, 15 10.1186/s41043-018-0146-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tang S.; Wang L.; Wang H.; Chin D.P. Access to and affordability of healthcare for TB patients in China: issues and challenges. Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2016, 5, 10 10.1186/s40249-016-0096-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jia X.; Chen J.; Zhang S.; Dai B.; Long Q.; Tang S. Implementing a "free" tuberculosis (TB) care policy under the integrated model in Jiangsu, China: practices and costs in the real world. Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2016, 5, 2 10.1186/s40249-016-0098-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fuady A.; Houweling T.A.J.; Mansyur M.; Burhan E.; Richardus J.H. Effect of financial support on reducing the incidence of catastrophic costs among tuberculosis-affected households in Indonesia: eight simulated scenarios. Infect. Dis. Poverty. 2019, 8, 10 10.1186/s40249-019-0519-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mullerpattan J.B.; Udwadia Z.Z.; Banka R.A.; Ganatra S.R.; Udwadia Z.F. Catastrophic costs of treating drug resistant TB patients in a tertiary care hospital in India. Indian J. Tuberc. 2019, 66, 87–91. 10.1016/j.ijtb.2018.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tanimura T.; Jaramillo E.; Weil D.; Raviglione M.; Lönnroth K. Financial burden for tuberculosis patients in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Eur. Respir. J. 2014, 43, 1763–1775. 10.1183/09031936.00193413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bogale S.; Diro E.; Shiferaw A.M.; Yenit M.K. Factors associated with the length of delay with tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment among adult tuberculosis patients attending at public health facilities in Gondar town, Northwest, Ethiopia. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017, 17, 145 10.1186/s12879-017-2240-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Osei E.; Akweongo P.; Binka F. Factors associated with DELAY in diagnosis among tuberculosis patients in Hohoe Municipality, Ghana. BMC Public Health. 2015, 15, 721 10.1186/s12889-015-1922-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pichenda K.; Nakamura K.; Morita A.; et al. Non-hospital DOT and early diagnosis of tuberculosis reduce costs while achieving treatment success [J]. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2012, 16, 828–834. 10.5588/ijtld.11.0688 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Duan W.; Zhang W.; Wu C.; et al. Extent and determinants of catastrophic health expenditure for tuberculosis care in Chongqing municipality, China: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019, 9, e026638 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.ZHANG Juanjuan HU Fangxiang, WANG Yunxia, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of tuberculosis in Bao'an District, Shenzhen, 2008–2015. China Tropical Medicine, February 2018, Vol.18, No.2:p128–13032. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Holtz T. H., Sternberg M., Kammereret al S. Time to sputum culture conversion in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: predictors and relationship to treatment outcome. Ann Intern Med, 2006, 144 (9): 650–659] 10.7326/0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li T., et al. , Patient and health system delays before registration among migrant patients with tuberculosis who were transferred out in China. BMC Health Serv Res, 2018. 18(1): p. 786 10.1186/s12913-018-3583-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhao Q., et al. , Impacts of the "transport subsidy initiative on poor TB patients" in Rural China: a patient-cohort based longitudinal study in rural China. PLoS One, 2013. 8(11): p. e82503 10.1371/journal.pone.0082503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sreeramareddy C.T., et al. , Time delays in diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review of literature. BMC Infect Dis, 2009. 9: p. 91 10.1186/1471-2334-9-91 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bao H.; Liu K.; Wu Z.; et al. Tuberculosis among full-time teachers in Southeast China, 2005–2016. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018, 15, 2024 Published 2018 Sep 17. 10.3390/ijerph15092024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhu L.; Yang Y.Z.; Guan H.Y.; et al. Trends in drug-resistant tuberculosis after the implementation of the DOTS strategy in Shenzhen, China, 2000–2013. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2017, 21, 759–765. 10.5588/ijtld.16.0759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hemant Deepak Shewade

7 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-06789

Analysis of the Economic Burden of Diagnosis and Treatment on Patients with Tuberculosis (TB) in the TB Control Demonstration Area of China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Yixiang Huang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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.

Below you will find my comments along with comments of our two esteemed reviewers.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 05 May 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hemant Deepak Shewade, MBBS MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

In addition to the valuable points raised by the two reviewers, i have some comments from my end (some of these may be made by the reviewers as well)

1. Abstract - most were from the migrant population - why use ' most' here while elsewhere the number % have been given?

2. out of pockets expenditure? Please be careful with use of phrases (point made by the reviewer as well). Are you looking at total costs due to TB care or out of pocket expenditure. Overall in your paper, no reference was made to the WHO TB patient cost survey handbook 2016. I see that the study was among patients registered in 2013 and the WHO ptient cost survey booklet was not out then. Hence, it will be nice ot have a table in methods with clear operational definitions used.

3. 2.2 Study design title should be renamed as 2.2 Study design and population

4. Anonymized data HAS to be shared and this is ESSENTIAL

5. In the ethics statement, please mention the ethics number and the date

6. Line 175-176 (regarding primary outcome) - this line is not clear

7. Line 191 - shouldn't it be the household's pre-TB annual income?

8. Line 204-06. Similar issues were faced by us in another study. Another analysis may be to classify the costs as catastrophic or not and then do a log binomial regression. We can present both the results. See the following paper for example, as to how the analysis was done: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30865730

9. Line 206 - Bivariate means two outcomes. All the analyses presented in this paper are univariate which can be further classified into single variable (curde or unadjusted) and multivariable (adjsuted) analysis.

10. What about catastrophic costs, what about inequity in distribution of catastrophic costs. See this paper for example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30173603

11. All the table and figure title have to be standalone with details about time place and person. Check for footnotes for abbreviations. All tables should be formatted again to make them presentable. For ex n and % in separate columns. n column shuold be right indented, (%) column should be left indented and vertical line between n and % should then be removed. CHeck other tables as well.

12. Why don't the authors look separately at factors associated with pre-dx costs and post-diagnosis costs.

13. If the authors have outcome data, why not compare unfav out and catastrophic costs, after adjusting for potential confounders.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: This work is on an important area namely the economic burden due to Tuberculosis related to the EndTB strategy goal of Zero Catastrophic cost for households due to Tuberculosis. The author have drafted the manuscript well and included several important points needed for a cost analysis study.

The study utilised a follow-up methodology to capture costs during the treatment phase. The authors have also studied some factors related to costs.

While the study justification rightly draws support from the EndTB Goal of Zero Catastrophic Cost, the authors have not included Catastrophic Cost estimation in the paper, despite having all the necessary data for the calculation of the same. It is highly recommended that the authors may include catastrophic cost and accordingly the manuscript may be redrafted. If there are data available on the coping costs or mechanism, they may also be included to understand the complete picture of the economic burden faced by the patients with Tuberculosis.

Abstract

Though the study includes both direct and indirect costs, the abstract starts with the terminology ‘expenditures’ which may apparently mislead a casual reader

Follow-up method utilised may be included in the methods under the abstract

Methodology

In the study settings,

the following may be included, which have implications while interpreting of the results: Proportion of Treatment and Retreatment Cases in the District; Actual figures of Incidence and Prevalence of Tuberculosis in Shenzhen Region/Bao’an District (lines 119-120), which needs to be specified seperately further between natives and migrants; No, of TB Cases in the District during the study year among natives and migrants; No. of (mandatory)visits as per the existing TB program during treatment; Proportion of patients with TB having co-morbidities namely diabetes, HIV, lung cancer etc.; Whether Active Case finding strategy is implemented or not; Mean/Median household (and/or Individual) income in the region/district; Proportion of people in different economic categories; a brief description of occupational health care provisions/model in the district relevant to TB care; brief description of the existing intervention in the district to address economic burden faced by patients/households due to TB; whether hospitalisation costs due to TB for persons with TB are covered under the existing program?;

Study Design:

Why were those aged above 59 years not included for the study? Reasons may be stated and also included/addressed in the discussion

In the discussion, need to consider, how non-inclusion of those with morbidity namely Diabetes, HIV affected the representativeness of the study. HIV and Diabetes have programmatic implications for Tuberculosis control as well as have been shown by studies in the literature to drive the costs due to tuberculosis higher.

Where those with MDR-TB excluded? Or is it that there were no drug resistant cases during the study period, which is quite unlikely. The authors have not stated whether the study is about costs due to drug sensitive tuberculosis. These needs to be clarified in title, abstract, justification (objectives), methods, and discussion.

Sample Size has not been estimated by the authors. Studies in the literature on Cost of illness have adopted different methods to calculate sample size. They may be referred to.

The cost data was based on self-reporting. The authors have mentioned both in the methodology and strengths in discussion, that that a logic-check was done. Brief description of this may be provided to help readers understand how this enabled better data quality

Timing of the first interview in the intensive phase could have affected the recall leading to differential recall among different participants. The data on delay between start of treatment and interview may be provided as mean and range. Similarly, it would be important to state whether the timing of multiple interviews were standardised for all patients.

Methodology can include explicitly the perspective from which cost was calculated, though it is understandable from the objective.

The reason for non-inclusion of guardian (companion) cost is not acceptable as the need for guardian are often higher during pre-diagnosis phase as the patients have more illness and may often make multiple visits to one or more provider before the diagnosis and start of treatment. Authors have also reported hospitalisations during pre-diagnosis period. Guardian (companion) costs needs to be included in the analysis.

The source of questionnaire may be stated and provided.

Though the study reported insurance coverage for participants, authors have not stated how reimbursements were adjusted against the costs in the analysis.

Results

Clinical characteristics including co-morbidities, pulmonary/extrapulmonary, etc to be included.

Care-seeking characteristics should include number of consultations/visits prior to diagnosis, number of providers visited and type of providers / facility visited (especially private providers /facility as it can vary from single doctor provider facility to corporate hospital)

Data on whether the participant was a beneficiary of any of the existing interventions in the district to reduce the economic burden to patients due to TB, needs to be reported, including the quantum of benefit

The cost during different phases of treatment could also be made available especially since authors have conducted multiple interviews through follow-up to obtain costs through the treatment period. They are important while planning interventions

Where there no hospitalisation episodes among participants during the treatment phase?

In Table 2, what are these Non-Tb drugs?

In table 3, what timeline does sputum smear test pertain to? What is the definition of household economic burden? What is the definition for degree of symptoms at diagnosis? Is it self-reported or based on clinical assessment? The Operational definition of these variables need to be included in the methodology.

Why insurance coverage was not included as a factor for economic burden?

Among the factors considered for economic burden, some of them pertain to pre-diagnosis costs and other may pertain to treatment phase costs and few many be for total costs. It is recommended that these be split accordingly instead of considering everything together, as there are implications for suggesting possible interventions to reduce cost.

Discussion

While the population of the district has 65% migrants, in the study, 95% of the study participants are migrants. This can have implications for representativeness of the study. This needs to be discussed in detail; this again importance further since it is one of the factors found to be significantly associated with economic burden as in table 3.

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of those 19 participants lost to follow-up need to be reported and the implications of the study results need to be discussed

Of the 533 participants, 176 patients were reported to have been shifted to CPC with no costs for patients during pre-diagnosis period. Can description of these transfers provided and included in study setting. How this lead to no delays and no costs are important for understanding the drivers of costs/economic burden.

Line 413, what are the author establishing by stating ‘recall and reporting bias could not be avoided, even in this longitudinal design’ The statement is self-contradictory. May need to be revised

Figure may not be needed as this information is represented in the table 2 and is clearly evident too.

Some Typographical Errors

Alignment of 70% in Age category 40-50 in Table 1

Subtitle Insurance to be made bold in Table 1

Weblink in line 112 may be shifted to reference and reference number provided

Title of Table 3, CNY needs to be removed

Reviewer #2: 1. The author needs to add some more details on opportunity cost i.e, income loss by patients due to illness. Some patients were hospitalized but they have earnings from job without wage loss then how to quantify the opportunity cost? Also, variation in salary is very heterogenetic. The author needs to describe about opportunity cost.

2. Under background characteristics, author mentioned about insurance company, but for Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE), we should not mention reimbursements given by insurance company. If the patients are getting reimbursements from any type of insurance, it should be deducted from the total out of pocket expenditure.

Net out of pocket expenditure = Total expenditure - Reimbursement.

Reimbursement amount should be highlighted if possible.

3. In methodology section, the author has mentioned the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney analysis to examine the effect of each predictor variable on economic burden. But Chi-square test is used to know the association between predictor variables and regression analysis is used to understand the effects of predictor variables.

4. Table 3 analysis indicated that factors related to direct and opportunity costs (CNY) and in relation with the background variables. The heading should be association or differentials by background characteristics of patients and table 4 is showing the factor with regression analysis.

5. In table 4 multivariate analysis, only few predictor variables have been added. However, the author described in methodology section A forward stepwise approach was used to find the appropriate model. If P-value less than 0.05 is significant. It is good and recognised methods for adding the variables in regression analysis. Try also Variance inflation factor (VIF) to know the multicollinearity in predictor variables. If VIF less than 10, than the author can add the predictor variables and explore more variable as predictor variables.

Based on the above observations and looking into overall merit of the paper, few modifications in line of above points may be considered before sending it for publication.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Jeetendra Yadav

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 31;15(8):e0237865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237865.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 May 2020

We have upload the file "Response to editor and reviewers" as attached file, please check for clearer and more detailed responses . The following is the copy of the file:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

In addition to the valuable points raised by the two reviewers, i have some comments from my end (some of these may be made by the reviewers as well)

1. Abstract - most were from the migrant population - why use ' most' here while elsewhere the number % have been given?

Thanks for the editor’s suggestion. We have replaced ‘most’ with the exact number ‘95%’ in the abstract, which was mentioned in the line 255.

2. out of pockets expenditure? Please be careful with use of phrases (point made by the reviewer as well). Are you looking at total costs due to TB care or out of pocket expenditure. Overall in your paper, no reference was made to the WHO TB patient cost survey handbook 2016. I see that the study was among patients registered in 2013 and the WHO ptient cost survey booklet was not out then. Hence, it will be nice ot have a table in methods with clear operational definitions used.

We are grateful for your suggestion. In our study, we did not include the cost covered by the medical insurance, hence it is inappropriate to use the term ‘out of pockets expenditure’. So we replaced it with ‘cost’ to make it more accurate. There are many kinds of medical insurance in China, and the patients may not be aware of whether they have certain kind of medical insurance or not, so they did not use the medical insurance to reduce their expenditure. However, in our study, the cost is measurable and comparable, so we revised it throughout this article accordingly.

According to your advice, we have added the operational definitions in table 1.

3. 2.2 Study design title should be renamed as 2.2 Study design and population

Revised, thank you.

4. Anonymized data HAS to be shared and this is ESSENTIAL

Thanks for this suggestion. We have provided the anonymous data as attachment in an .xls document.

5. In the ethics statement, please mention the ethics number and the date

We are grateful for the Reviewer’s suggestion. The ethical approval number is 2012-SPH021, date 9/28/ 2012.

6. Line 175-176 (regarding primary outcome) - this line is not clear

Thanks for this suggestion. We revised the definition to make it clear in line 192-193 as follows: The primary outcome variables were the mean (median) expense incurred during illness.

7. Line 191 - shouldn't it be the household's pre-TB annual income?

We appreciate your suggestion. Our study does have the limitation that we collected the range of the household's pre-TB annual income of every patient instead the exact number. However, we collected the exact number of the total annual income of every patient and as a result, we used the indicator to measure the patients’ economic burden.

8. Line 204-06. Similar issues were faced by us in another study. Another analysis may be to classify the costs as catastrophic or not and then do a log binomial regression. We can present both the results. See the following paper for example, as to how the analysis was done: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30865730

We appreciate this suggestion. As mentioned above, we did not consider the catastrophic cost as an indicator in the design phase of our study, so we are not able to conduct the analysis regarding catastrophic cost. In our revision, based on the paper given above, we improved our method of statistics by adopting 2 methods in our revised manuscript.

9. Line 206 - Bivariate means two outcomes. All the analyses presented in this paper are univariate which can be further classified into single variable (curde or unadjusted) and multivariable (adjsuted) analysis.

Thanks for this suggestion. We have adopted a new method in the data analysis which is described carefully in line 221-244.

10. What about catastrophic costs, what about inequity in distribution of catastrophic costs. See this paper for example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30173603

We appreciate your suggestion. However, we did not adopt this professional term at the start of the study, and the annual patient income is expressed as a range instead of an exact number. As a result, it would be impossible to calculate the catastrophic costs to patients.

11. All the table and figure title have to be standalone with details about time place and person. Check for footnotes for abbreviations. All tables should be formatted again to make them presentable. For ex n and % in separate columns. n column shuold be right indented, (%) column should be left indented and vertical line between n and % should then be removed. CHeck other tables as well.

We appreciate your suggestion. We have reformatted the tables throughout the article according to your suggestions.

12. Why don't the authors look separately at factors associated with pre-dx costs and post-diagnosis costs.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have analyzed the factors associated with different period of the treatment according to your suggestion and revised the statement in the data analysis, results and discussion section on the basis of the new analysis results.

13. If the authors have outcome data, why not compare unfav out and catastrophic costs, after adjusting for potential confounders.

We appreciate your suggestion. However, we did not adopt this professional term at the start of the study, and the annual patient income is expressed as a range instead of an exact number. As a result, it would be impossible to calculate the catastrophic costs to patients.

Reviewer #1: This work is on an important area namely the economic burden due to Tuberculosis related to the EndTB strategy goal of Zero Catastrophic cost for households due to Tuberculosis. The author have drafted the manuscript well and included several important points needed for a cost analysis study.

The study utilised a follow-up methodology to capture costs during the treatment phase. The authors have also studied some factors related to costs.

While the study justification rightly draws support from the EndTB Goal of Zero Catastrophic Cost, the authors have not included Catastrophic Cost estimation in the paper, despite having all the necessary data for the calculation of the same. It is highly recommended that the authors may include catastrophic cost and accordingly the manuscript may be redrafted. If there are data available on the coping costs or mechanism, they may also be included to understand the complete picture of the economic burden faced by the patients with Tuberculosis.

We appreciate your suggestion. However, we did not adopt this professional term at the start of the study, and the annual patient income is expressed as a range instead of an exact number. As a result, it would be impossible to calculate the catastrophic costs to patients.

In our study, most of the study population were factory workers. Only 186 workers knew that they had medical insurance and 305 workers knew that they did not have any medical insurance. Other 23 workers were unaware of whether they had medical insurance or not, and at the end of the study, they did not bring about any medical care reimbursement cost. Only 34 patients provided information about medical care reimbursement cost. As a result, the proportion of cost paid by medical insurance was not included in the analysis.

Abstract

Though the study includes both direct and indirect costs, the abstract starts with the terminology ‘expenditures’ which may apparently mislead a casual reader

Follow-up method utilised may be included in the methods under the abstract

Thank you for this suggestion. We have replaced the word ‘expenditures’ with ‘costs’ to avoid misunderstanding and added the follow-up method in the abstract.

Methodology

In the study settings,

the following may be included, which have implications while interpreting of the results:

1.Proportion of Treatment and Retreatment Cases in the District;

Thanks for this suggestion. In the discussion section, we mentioned the proportion of treatment and retreatment cases in line 508-509 as follows: The re-treatment rate in our study was 5.84%, which is similar to that reported in other studies, with a re-treatment rate of 6.7% in Shenzhen and 6.4% in other provinces in China.

2.Actual figures of Incidence and Prevalence of Tuberculosis in Shenzhen Region/Bao’an District (lines 119-120), which needs to be specified seperately further between natives and migrants;

We appreciate your suggestion. We have added the data in line 139-141 as follows: In 2010, the prevalence rate of smear positive of native population was 19.44 per 100 000 population, and that of the migrant population was 59.96 per 100 000 population.

3. No, of TB Cases in the District during the study year among natives and migrants;

Thanks for this suggestion. We have listed the number in line 400-402 as follows: The total number of registered active tuberculosis cases were 1317, included 76(5.8) native case and 1241(94.2%) migrant cases in 2013.

4. No. of (mandatory)visits as per the existing TB program during treatment;

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the data in line 157.

5.Proportion of patients with TB having co-morbidities namely diabetes, HIV, lung cancer etc

We appreciate your suggestion. Because in our study, the patients with co-morbidities were excluded from the study, it is impossible to calculate the proportion of patients with TB having co-morbidities.

6.Whether Active Case finding strategy is implemented or not;

We appreciate your suggestion. In the study setting section, we have added the statements in line 132-139 to clarify the way of TB patients being found in China as follows: The hospitals were the main place finding tuberculosis case and the Center for Prevention and Cure of chronic diseases (CPC) were the local designated TB facilities in the national TB programme networks, providing treatment and managing the tuberculosis cases. The healthcare providers in general hospitals were obligate to refer the suspected cases to CPC and the basic information of suspected cases were sent to CPC. If the cases did not consulted to CPC in time, the workers of CPC would contact the suspected case. Actively cooperating with medical institutions and TB prevention and control institutions, the discovery rate and report quality was increasing by years.

7.Mean/Median household (and/or Individual) income in the region/district;

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the median household income in Bao’an district in line 155-157 as follows: The mean household income in the region was 6,656.79 USD of 2012 according to the Statistical yearbook 2013.

8. Proportion of people in different economic categories;

We appreciate your suggestion. However, we did not have access to the detailed information about the income of different population.

9. a brief description of occupational health care provisions/model in the district relevant to TB care;

Thanks for this suggestion. In China, there is no occupational health care provisions/model focus on TB prevention only, the workers in our study were provided with the general occupational health service. For example, the workers may participant in the regular medical examination paid by the factory owner.

10. brief description of the existing intervention in the district to address economic burden faced by patients/households due to TB

We appreciate your suggestion. In line 148-151, we described the existing free policies to relief the economic burden on TB patients: The Center for Prevention and Cure of chronic diseases (CPC) is the institution authorized to provide TB diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. The CPC provides patients with a radiologic imaging studies (X-ray) while diagnosed, and sputum smear tests during treatment, and anti-TB drugs for 6-8 months for free.

11. whether hospitalisation costs due to TB for persons with TB are covered under the existing program?

Thank you for this suggestion. The hospitalization costs due to TB was not covered under the existing program and born by the patients themselves. We have added the statements in line 148-151 to state the range of free TB policy. Since the cost regarding hospitalization is not included in the policy, it have to be borne by patients themselves.

Study Design:

Why were those aged above 59 years not included for the study? Reasons may be stated and also included/addressed in the discussion.

We appreciate your suggestion. People ages above 59 are more likely to have comorbidities which may influence the analysis of economic burden, so we excluded them. We have added the reason in line 166-167 as follows: The patients aged above 59 were excluded considering the elderly may have more commodities and those with MDR-TB were excluded too.

In the discussion, need to consider, how non-inclusion of those with morbidity namely Diabetes, HIV affected the representativeness of the study. HIV and Diabetes have programmatic implications for Tuberculosis control as well as have been shown by studies in the literature to drive the costs due to tuberculosis higher.

Thanks for this suggestion. We have discussed the influence of non-inclusion on the representativeness of our study in the limitation section in line 392-398 as follows: We included 533 eligible patients in the survey, 19 of which were lost to follow-up. The average age of them was 29.6±10.2years. The male was 14 and female was 5. One patient was with a severe symptoms appeared hemoptysis. The others were with mild or moderate symptoms like cough, chest distress and fever etc. the lost to follow-up was about 4 percent, and the general Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of those 19 participants lost to follow-up were identical with the 514 patients. So,we considered there no much influence on our conclusion.

However, the exclusion can inevitably injure the representativeness, so we added this point as a limitation of our study in line 519-523 as follows: Our study only investigated the economic burden of patients brought by TB and those with severe co-morbidities such as AIDS, diabetes, and lung cancer were excluded. Therefore our study may reflect the economic burden faced by TB patients instead of all population.

Where those with MDR-TB excluded? Or is it that there were no drug resistant cases during the study period, which is quite unlikely. The authors have not stated whether the study is about costs due to drug sensitive tuberculosis. These needs to be clarified in title, abstract, justification (objectives), methods, and discussion.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the statement in the Study Design and population part in line165-167. To illustrate the study population of our survey more accurate, we have added the particular explanation in every section accordingly.

In our study, there were only 4 patients with MDR-TB among total 514 patients. One patient failed to achieve TB suppression in the third month of treatment, and the other three patients developed drug resistance during the treatment. Doctors adjusted the medicine according to their condition and part of second-line medicine is not free. Because there were few patients with MDR-TB, we did not eliminated them from the analysis. However, they may not have much impact on the stability of the analysis.

Sample Size has not been estimated by the authors. Studies in the literature on Cost of illness have adopted different methods to calculate sample size. They may be referred to.

We appreciate your suggestion. Ahead of our study, we did not calculate the sample size we needed. We included every patient who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to take part in our survey during the study period. Analysis results showed that the sample size of our study is enough to achieve the power required.

The cost data was based on self-reporting. The authors have mentioned both in the methodology and strengths in discussion, that that a logic-check was done. Brief description of this may be provided to help readers understand how this enabled better data quality.

We appreciate your suggestion. In the Data collection section, we have explained the process of a logic-check in line 187-189 as follows: Those contradictions or missing information would be asked of patients again in a subsequent interview. We also evaluated the quality of collected data by verifying the routine health information system.

Timing of the first interview in the intensive phase could have affected the recall leading to differential recall among different participants. The data on delay between start of treatment and interview may be provided as mean and range. Similarly, it would be important to state whether the timing of multiple interviews were standardised for all patients.

Thank you for this suggestion. First interview is in the first month of intensive phase treatment. We have added the median delay time of diagnosis in line 270-271. In the limitation section, we have mentioned that recall bias could not be avoided in our study as it relied on the information self-reported by patients. Patients went to see the doctor in chronic disease station nearby on time and were followed-up during their visit.

Methodology can include explicitly the perspective from which cost was calculated, though it is understandable from the objective.

Thanks for this suggestion. We have added the illustration in the line 192 as follows: We analysis the economic burden from tuberculosis patients’ perspective.

The reason for non-inclusion of guardian (companion) cost is not acceptable as the need for guardian are often higher during pre-diagnosis phase as the patients have more illness and may often make multiple visits to one or more provider before the diagnosis and start of treatment. Authors have also reported hospitalisations during pre-diagnosis period. Guardian (companion) costs needs to be included in the analysis.

We appreciate your suggestion. We regret mentioning that the companion costs was not surveyed in the study. In China, TB is a common disease and most patients do not need companions during the treatment. Another reason is that patients in our study were surveyed in the community or chronic disease station near their home within 15 minutes’ walk. So the companion costs during pre-diagnosis period may not have much impact on the outcome. We admit that it is a limitation of our study and have added the explanation in line 523-525 as follows: Second, in our study, we did not survey the information regarding companion costs although it may not have much impact on the results since most TB patients in China did not need to be companion during the treatment.

The source of questionnaire may be stated and provided.

Thanks for your suggestion. In this survey, we combined the aim of our study with standardized questionnaire used to investigate the demographic characteristic and designed the questionnaire. We have provided the questionnaire we used as attachment.

Though the study reported insurance coverage for participants, authors have not stated how reimbursements were adjusted against the costs in the analysis.

Thanks for your suggestion. In our study, most of the study population were factory workers. Only 186 workers knew that they had medical insurance and 305 workers knew that they did not have any medical insurance. Other 23 workers were unaware of whether they had medical insurance or not, and at the end of the study, they did not bring about any medical care reimbursement cost. Only 34 patients provided information about medical care reimbursement cost. As a result, the proportion of cost paid by medical insurance was not included in the analysis.

Results

Clinical characteristics including co-morbidities, pulmonary/extrapulmonary, etc to be included.

Care-seeking characteristics should include number of consultations/visits prior to diagnosis, number of providers visited and type of providers / facility visited (especially private providers /facility as it can vary from single doctor provider facility to corporate hospital)

We appreciate your suggestion. In the Socio-demographic Characteristics and Care-seeking Behaviors section, we have added the number of consultations prior diagnosis and type of facility visited in line 267-270. However, we did not collect information about the number of providers visited.

Data on whether the participant was a beneficiary of any of the existing interventions in the district to reduce the economic burden to patients due to TB, needs to be reported, including the quantum of benefit

Thanks for your suggestion. We have mentioned the coverage of the existing free TB policy in the Study setting section in line 149-151. In the second paragraph, we have also added the description of the extent of free treatment and the cost covered by the policy in line 404-406 as follows: Under the DOTS program, the CPC provide tuberculosis patients with a radiologic imaging studies (X-ray) , sputum smear tests and anti-TB drug during treatment for free amounting to 102.07 USD.

The cost during different phases of treatment could also be made available especially since authors have conducted multiple interviews through follow-up to obtain costs through the treatment period. They are important while planning interventions

Where there no hospitalisation episodes among participants during the treatment phase?

We appreciate your suggestion. Our study only investigated the cost reported by the patients occurred in the chronic disease station. There was no inpatient ward in the chronic disease station, so we did not surveyed the information about hospitalization.

In Table 2, what are these Non-Tb drugs?

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the subsidiary drugs in line 152-153.

In table 3, what timeline does sputum smear test pertain to? What is the definition of household economic burden? What is the definition for degree of symptoms at diagnosis? Is it self-reported or based on clinical assessment? The Operational definition of these variables need to be included in the methodology.

Thanks for this suggestion. We have illustrated these definitions clearly in table 1.

Why insurance coverage was not included as a factor for economic burden?

Thanks for your suggestion. In our study, most of the study population were factory workers. Only 186 workers knew that they had medical insurance and 305 workers knew that they did not have any medical insurance. Other 23 workers were unaware of whether they had medical insurance or not, and at the end of the study, they did not bring about any medical care reimbursement cost. Only 34 patients provided information about medical care reimbursement cost. As a result, the proportion of cost paid by medical insurance was not included in the analysis.

Among the factors considered for economic burden, some of them pertain to pre-diagnosis costs and other may pertain to treatment phase costs and few many be for total costs. It is recommended that these be split accordingly instead of considering everything together, as there are implications for suggesting possible interventions to reduce cost.

We appreciate this suggestion. Considering everything together is truly not legible and easy to guide practice. So we decided to analyze the factors associated with pre-diagnosis and post-diagnosis separately according to your suggestion.

Discussion

While the population of the district has 65% migrants, in the study, 95% of the study participants are migrants. This can have implications for representativeness of the study. This needs to be discussed in detail; this again importance further since it is one of the factors found to be significantly associated with economic burden as in table 3.

Thanks for this suggestion. We have discussed it carefully in line 402-405 as follows: As one of the most population of Shenzhen City and owing numbers of factories , the migrant population in Bao’an district always exceeds the average level of Shenzhen City. The total number of registered active tuberculosis cases were 1317, included 76(5.8%) native case and 1241(94.2%) migrant cases in 2013. In our study, 95 percent were migrant cases, so our study can reflect the TB condition of Bao’an district truly.

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of those 19 participants lost to follow-up need to be reported and the implications of the study results need to be discussed

We appreciate this suggestion. In line 395-401, we have added the statement of the influence of lost follow-ups on our outcome.

Of the 533 participants, 176 patients were reported to have been shifted to CPC with no costs for patients during pre-diagnosis period. Can description of these transfers provided and included in study setting. How this lead to no delays and no costs are important for understanding the drivers of costs/economic burden.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the detailed illustration in the study setting section in line 132-139.

Line 413, what are the author establishing by stating ‘recall and reporting bias could not be avoided, even in this longitudinal design’ The statement is self-contradictory. May need to be revised

Revised, thank you.

Figure may not be needed as this information is represented in the table 2 and is clearly evident too.

We appreciate this suggestion. We deleted figure 1 in the article.

Some Typographical Errors

Alignment of 70% in Age category 40-50 in Table 1

Subtitle Insurance to be made bold in Table 1

Weblink in line 112 may be shifted to reference and reference number provided

Title of Table 3, CNY needs to be removed

Revised, thank you.

Reviewer #2: 1. The author needs to add some more details on opportunity cost i.e, income loss by patients due to illness. Some patients were hospitalized but they have earnings from job without wage loss then how to quantify the opportunity cost? Also, variation in salary is very heterogenetic. The author needs to describe about opportunity cost.

We appreciate this suggestion. We have describe the opportunity cost in table 1 carefully. If TB patients still worked during the hospitalization, then there was no wage loss and the wage loss was 0.

2. Under background characteristics, author mentioned about insurance company, but for Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE), we should not mention reimbursements given by insurance company. If the patients are getting reimbursements from any type of insurance, it should be deducted from the total out of pocket expenditure.

Net out of pocket expenditure = Total expenditure - Reimbursement.

Reimbursement amount should be highlighted if possible.

Thank you for this suggestion. We realized that it was inappropriate to use the term ’out of pocket expenditure’ to describe the economic burden for in our study, the cost covered by medical insurance is not included in the analysis. In our study, most of the study population were factory workers. Only 186 workers knew that they had medical insurance and 305 workers knew that they did not have any medical insurance. Other 23 workers were unaware of whether they had medical insurance or not, and at the end of the study, they did not bring about any medical care reimbursement cost. Only 34 patients provided information about medical care reimbursement cost. As a result, the proportion of cost paid by medical insurance was not included in the analysis.

3. In methodology section, the author has mentioned the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney analysis to examine the effect of each predictor variable on economic burden. But Chi-square test is used to know the association between predictor variables and regression analysis is used to understand the effects of predictor variables.

We appreciate your suggestion. We have revised the analysis method and Chi-square test is not used this time. So we deleted it.

4. Table 3 analysis indicated that factors related to direct and opportunity costs (CNY) and in relation with the background variables. The heading should be association or differentials by background characteristics of patients and table 4 is showing the factor with regression analysis.

We have revised the table titles according to your advice and thanks for your advice.

5. In table 4 multivariate analysis, only few predictor variables have been added. However, the author described in methodology section A forward stepwise approach was used to find the appropriate model. If P-value less than 0.05 is significant. It is good and recognised methods for adding the variables in regression analysis. Try also Variance inflation factor (VIF) to know the multicollinearity in predictor variables. If VIF less than 10, than the author can add the predictor variables and explore more variable as predictor variables.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have adjusted the data analysis method according to your suggestion.

Based on the above observations and looking into overall merit of the paper, few modifications in line of above points may be considered before sending it for publication.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editors and reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hemant Deepak Shewade

5 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-06789R1

Analysis of the Economic Burden of Diagnosis and Treatment on Patients with non-drug resistance Tuberculosis (TB) in the TB Control Demonstration Area of China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wei-Qing Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 20 June 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hemant Deepak Shewade, MBBS MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors, Please find attached (PFA) the revised manuscript pdf along with my comments. The comments have been provided as sticky notes in the pdf. Carefully go through the comments one by one. I have suggested some changes in the analysis. Please also improve the grammar and other typo errors.

[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: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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: No

**********

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: (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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Jeetendra Yadav

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-06789_R1_hds.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 31;15(8):e0237865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237865.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


19 Jun 2020

Title

1. May remove 'non-drug resistance' from the title. In the study population may explain that you included people with TB (not known to be drug-resistant)

Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed 'non-drug resistance' from the title and explain it clearly in the study population section.

2. remove (TB) form title

Revised, thank you.

3. may remove 'non-demonstration area' from the title and mention the exact province or district in the title

Revised, thank you.

4,Analysis of the economic burden of diagnosis and treatment on patients with tuberculosis in xxxx, China

We appreciate this suggestion. We have revised the title according to your suggestion.

Abstract

1. Still in the abstract i do not get the folllowing information.What proportion of housholds incurred catastrophic costs due to

- TB diagnosis (pre-diagnosis)

- TB treatment (post-diagnosis)

- TB care (pre plus post)

You have not mentioned the factors associated with catastrophic costs.

We appreciate this suggestion. Our study does have the limitation that we collected the range of the household's pre-TB annual income of every patient instead the exact number. We did not consider the catastrophic cost as an indicator in the design phase of our study, so we are not able to conduct the analysis regarding catastrophic cost. According to the reviewers’ suggestion, we adopted two new analysis methods to make our results more convincing.

2. Expand abbreviations at first use. Once an abbreviation is used, continue using it instead of the full form.Please check this throughout the paper

Revised, thank you.

3. Factors associated with

Revised, thank you.

4. Give exact percentage and frequency in parenthesis

Revised, thank you.

5. Please main consistency pre-diagnosis direct post-diagnosis medical and

non-medical. BUT direct post-diagnosis? Shouldn't it be post-diagnosis direct costs?

post-diagnosis direct costs? I am suggesting the following structure to your results narrative in abstract in line with my suggestions for results narrative in main text

To avoid confusion, i suggest the following three important costs and presenting their median values here

costs due to TB diagnosis

costs due to TB treatment

costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment)

Then mention the % contribution of direct medical, direct non-medical, indirect costs to the above three costs. Then mention the key factors for high costs (due to diagnosis, due to treatment, due to care (diag+treat)). While mentioning the factors, instead of mentioning the variable, mention the exact sub category that was associated with high costs.

Thanks for this suggestion. To make the description more accurate, we have revised the narrative regarding the cost occurred before and after diagnosis as follows:

We changed the ‘pre-diagnosis costs’ into ‘costs due to TB diagnosis’, ‘post-diagnosis costs’ into ‘costs due to TB treatment’ and ‘total costs’ into ‘costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment)’.

6. Does this mean post-diagnosis or pre+post-diagnosis?

We appreciate this suggestion. It means pre+post-diagnosis and in this revision we have changed it into ‘costs due to TB care (diagnosis and treatment)’.

7. Not clear

Education being associated with pre-diagnosis costs. I am not clear whether those who are educated have more pre-diagnosis costs or those with not educated have more pre-diagnosis costs. In other words the diagnosis of association is not clear.

Please may modify as follows.

Factors associated with more pre-diagnosis costs are: xxx, yyy, zzz. (just do not mention education, mention whether it is less education or more education)

Similarly mention: Factors association with more post-diagnosis costs are: xxx, yyy, zzzz Like education, clarify for household registration (ye or no), sputum smear status (high grade or low grade, marital status (married or unmarried)

We appreciate this suggestion. We have modified the illustration as follows (line 55-60):

Those who visited more times to health facilities, hospitalized, received higher education or occupied in national civil servant/services /retired staff might expense more before diagnosis. Factors Costs due to TB treatment among migrant patients, Sputum smear positive patients, widowed/divorced population, was significantly higher. Factors associated with less total costs were native patients, fewer times of visiting to health-care facilities and those with no hospitalization history due to TB.

Background

1.What is the word count? from introduction to conclusion (excluding the tables and figures?).

I see this article to be very long. Though plos one does not have a word count limit, the article should be made more crisp and limited to 3000 words (max)

Thanks for this suggestion. We revised the title ‘Introduction’ as ‘Background’. In order to state our results simpler and clear, we have deleted a lot of statement which is not pretty related to our research and put some tables as the supplement materials.

2.These have to be updated as per WHO Global TB report 2019 (data for year 2018)

Thanks for your suggestion and we have updated the data according to the Global TB report 2019.

3.Not clear

Thanks for this suggestion. To avoid confusion, we have deleted these words.

Materials and Methods

1.What about assessment of catastrophic costs and factors associated with catastrophic costs?

We appreciate your suggestion. As mentioned above, we did not consider the catastrophic cost as an indicator in the design phase of our study, so we are not able to conduct the analysis regarding catastrophic cost. We evaluated the economic burden as the proportion of patients’ total annual income instead.

2.Expand abbreviations on first use.

Revised, thank you.

3.How is this related to the current study?

We appreciate your suggestion. This part is not directly associated with our study and we have removed it from the article.

4.Is this relevant to the current study?

Removed, thank you.

5.Use 'previously treated' throughout the manuscript - narrative text, tables and figures

Revised, thank you.

6.TB patients (not known to be drug resistant)

Revised, thank you.

7.Transferred-in patients

Revised, thank you.

8.Mention this line in measurements and definition section. May be at the beginning of second para in measurements and definiton section. Remove it from here.

Thanks for your suggestion and we have removed it from here according to your advice.

9.What did you do when there was unfavourable outcomes, say loss to follow up? did you use monthly average of previous months and added it to the reminder of the treatment. What was done when a patient was transferred out? Transfer out is common among migrants.

We appreciate your suggestion. The present study surveyed 533 eligible patients, 19 of whom were lost to follow-up, one of whom died from another disease, and 18 of whom moved to other provinces, the lost rate nearly 4%. Considering the lost rate was low, those patients were eliminated directly in the analysis.

10.May start this para by refering to Table 1. May put the details of costs calculation in Table 1. May mention the salient features here to avoid duplication. What about calculation of catastrophic costs. It has not been included in narrative or in the table.

The details of costs calculation were showed in the table 1.

Revised, thank you.

11.May remove this.

Revised, thank you.

12.May mention (indirect costs) in brackets.

Revised, thank you.

13.What is TP?

Thanks for your suggestion. We made a typo and have revised it as ‘TB’.

14.I guess this may be removed as well.

Revised, thank you.

15.I think you used median, may state so.

Revised, thank you.

16.Statement not complete. Please check.

Revised, thank you.

17.Please mention the approval number / letter number and date in parenthesis.

We are grateful for your suggestion. We have added the ethical approval number in the article.

Results

1.As mentioned before, the article is too long. One example is results narrative text.

The results narrative text should focus on the key results which should be in line with the aim and objectives. For details, the authors may always refer to the tables.

I suggest the authors to go through this paper for presentation of results. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173603/

Table 2 - baseline characteristics table

(see table 2 of above paper)

Table 3 - Table summarising the break of costs, three columns, costs due to diagnosis, treatment, diagnosis+treatment (see table 3 of above paper)

Table 4 - Contribution of direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect costs to the costs (in %), three columns as in Table 3 ((see table 3 of above paper)

Table 5,6,7: Factors assoc with all three costs - total costs due to diagnosis,treatment, diagnosis and treatment. (one table for each). See this paper to understand how these tables should be formatted (see table 3-8) https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3583-y

Then in Table 8, my summarise the factors. See table S1 (Additional file 1) in this paper.

https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-018-3583-y

Table five, six, seven may also be put as supplementary table as one cannot interpret the B coefficient much as the data is log transformed. I do not see the factors associated with total costs more than the median value (logistic regression). ?

This was one of my suggestions in previous round. In the revised version, the authors have mention this in data analysis section but have not incuded the same in results narrative. May compare the risk factors in linear regression and logistic regresion. Your results narrative may tell variables that are significanlty associated in both the models (and esp across diagnosis, treatment and diag+treat costs). Focus your discussion section on these variables.

Thanks for your suggestion. We have read the reference carefully and rearranged all the tables in this article. We summarize the factors in the supplement material in Table S4.

We also added the analysis regarding the factors associated with total cost according to your suggestion.

2.While writing the results, main the following consistency either % (number) or number (%) or only %. Please do not mix, it becomes difficult to read.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the description of results with %(number) throughout the article.

3.As shared before it is not clear what the final sample size of the study population

is? The same sample size should be the denominator for all your analysis.

Previous table sample size was around, 500, here it is 338. This is not the correct way to present. If people did not incur direct costs, mention their costs as zero and include them in the analysis.

We appreciate your suggestion. In the new tables, we have included all the patients into the analysis.

4.Those who did not incur pre-diagnosis costs should also be included. In other words, the denominator for calculation of costs has to be the same.

Revised, thank you.

5.Denominator has to be consistent as 514. If someone did not have costs under a

heading then consider it as zero and include it in the calculation of mean/median. See table 3 in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173603/

Instead of these details i would like to know in the form of a table or a 100% component bar diagram, what was the percentage contribution of direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect costs to total costs in the pre-diagnosis period, post diagnosis period and pre-post combined. See table 4 in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173603/

Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the table 4 to present the percentage contribution of direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect costs to total costs in the pre-diagnosis period, post diagnosis period and pre-post combined.

6.Not clear.when in hospital (ever? anytime during diagnosis?)

Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the category as ‘Whether in hospital due to TB diagnosis’.

7.Only significant variables presented? if yes, clarify in footnotes. For B coefficient, mention in footnote that linear regression was done after conversion to log scale. Hence, cannot be directly interpreted. but significance can be assessed.

We are grateful for your suggestion. We present the results of logistics

regression in the supplement table 1-3 and clarified it in the footnotes.

8.Predictor?

Revised, thank you.

9.Can exclude from table.

Revised, thank you.

10.E should be capital

Revised, thank you.

11.Similar comments as in Table 4. This table is well formated though

Revised, thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 0619.docx

Decision Letter 2

Hemant Deepak Shewade

16 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-06789R2

Analysis of the Economic Burden of Diagnosis and Treatment on Patients with Tuberculosis in Bao'an district of Shenzhen city, China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wei-Qing Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 26 July 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hemant Deepak Shewade, MBBS MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors, Below are editor and reviewer comments

EDITOR COMMENTS

Table 2. Mention N=524 in title

Table 3 and 4 - format the column titles

Do not repeat the results data in discussion. Results section is "what we found". Discussion section is "what it means"

Discussion section - please have a relook considering the principles below

First para - do not repeat the results. First para should include summary of results narrative using simple language (Without numbers) in 3-4 lines. When in doubt about the key findngs, revert back to the objectives

Then each finding should be discussed in one para. If three key findings, then three para.

Then in next para, what are the policy/practicice implications and future research

Strenght / Limitation

Please feel free to have these subheadings in discussion section: Summary of key findings, Discussion of key findings, Policy and practice implications, Strengths and limitations

REVIEWER 3 COMMENTS (they are in the form of an attachement, i am copying them here as well)

OVERALL COMMENTS

The study provide useful information about the economic burden of TB cases in Shenzhen city in China, which reflect the key indicator of the End- TB strategy. In spit the data was not so fresh ,the method and the definition was not in line with the latest TB patient cost handbook issued by WHO, the results still have some reference value for the evaluate of the progress in the TB control in south of China.

SPECIFIC COMMENT

1. Line 41:to replace the sentence“Illness-related costs experienced by patients” with “Illness-related costs experienced by tuberculosis patients” may be more related to the title

2. Line 43: “ full costs, including direct and opportunity costs” and Line 87 “opportunity costs ”is not clear, we recommend to use indirect cost directly and you use it in Table1.

3. Line 96-97 the reference of the migrant population proportion and income was inconsistent, considering the study was carried out in 2013, the statistical yearbook 2013 will be better.

4. Line 104 “The hospitals”is not accurate, here the hospital means general hospital?

5. Line 114-115 the discription was not accurate, both the X-ray and sputum smear was carried out during diagnosis and treatment, please redescribe.

6. Line 119-120 The description of “The drugs prescribed every month including auxiliary examinations and subsidiary drugs like……. etc. are not free.” was obscure, may misleading reader that all the drugs including TB drugs was not free. Please clarify.

8. Line 125 “1 January 2013 to June 2013” should be modified to “1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013”

9. Line128: the reason your study excluded the cases older than 59 was considering they might have more comorbidities, yet in the exclude criterions already mentioned the severe comobidities, so if it was necessary to exclude the elderly? Please reconsider.

10. Line 161-163 the analysis did not included the income lost of companions for the few proportion and did not included the loss time for daily drug intake for the reason of most patients done this on their way to wort….., it would be better to clearly list the exact number replace “a few” or “most”, which will provide more exactly information to the reader. In my opinion , it was more rational to include this part in the analysis.

11. Line 199 : “19 of whom were lost to follow-up” and Line 201 “The rate of loss to follow-up was nearly 4% (19)” was repeat information, Please simplify after integration

12. Line 204-205 :“They were diagnosed at CPC immediately without consulting to other facilities, so their costs due to TB diagnosis were not calculated”. This information should be described in the method part instead of the results. Another question, for these cases the diagnosis fee should not be ignored considering they also should be confirmed diagnosis in the CPC.

13. Line 209: Under the title of Table 2, should give the N

14. Table 2 : Please recheck of the number and percentage of Age( years), the total number is only 401, please describe the age of other 103 cases, if the information was missing ,please clarify also.

15. Table 2: “self-reported economic status*” what was the meaning of *, please describe in the footnote.

16. Line 211: TB care( diagnosis +treatment), as you have defined the TB care in the method part, so it was not necessary to take the bracket here

17. Line 224 : Please use “indirect costs” to replace “opportunity costs” that will ensure the consistent with the describe in the Table3

18. The first line of Table3 and Table 4, Please use “TB care” to replace “TB diagnosis+treatment” and “TB care( diagnosis+treatment) ”

19. Please recheck the ß value in Line 241 Line 245

20. Line 246 Table6??

21. For the discussion part, there were some repeat information of the results, such as Line 290 …. please go through this part and focus on the “real discussion”

[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 #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

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 One. 2020 Aug 31;15(8):e0237865. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237865.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


25 Jul 2020

For clearer version of Response to Reviewers, please check the uploaded file "Response to Reviewers 0725", thank you. The following is the copy of the uploaded file:

EDITOR COMMENTS

1.Table 2. Mention N=524 in title

Thanks for your suggestion and we have added the number in the title of table 2.

2.Table 3 and 4 - format the column titles

We are grateful for this suggestion. In the last round of revision, the editor provided us with an article to refer to and we have rearranged the format of table 3 and 4 as the tables in the article (The table in this picture is one example). We have also revised the first column title of these two tables according to your suggestion.

3.Do not repeat the results data in discussion. Results section is "what we found". Discussion section is "what it means"

Discussion section - please have a relook considering the principles below

First para - do not repeat the results. First para should include summary of results narrative using simple language (Without numbers) in 3-4 lines. When in doubt about the key findngs, revert back to the objectives

Then each finding should be discussed in one para. If three key findings, then three para.

Then in next para, what are the policy/practice implications and future research。

Strenght / Limitation

Please feel free to have these subheadings in discussion section: Summary of key findings, Discussion of key findings, Policy and practice implications, Strengths and limitations.

We are grateful for your suggestion and have reorganized the structure and content of the discussion section. We deleted the redundant description of results and added more summaries of the key findings.

REVIEWER 3 COMMENTS (they are in the form of an attachement, i am copying them here as well)

OVERALL COMMENTS

The study provide useful information about the economic burden of TB cases in Shenzhen city in China, which reflect the key indicator of the End- TB strategy. In spit the data was not so fresh ,the method and the definition was not in line with the latest TB patient cost handbook issued by WHO, the results still have some reference value for the evaluate of the progress in the TB control in south of China.

SPECIFIC COMMENT

1. Line 41:to replace the sentence“Illness-related costs experienced by patients” with “Illness-related costs experienced by tuberculosis patients” may be more related to the title

Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the sentence according to your suggestion.

2. Line 43: “ full costs, including direct and opportunity costs” and Line 87 “opportunity costs ”is not clear, we recommend to use indirect cost directly and you use it in Table1.

Thank you for this suggestion and we have replaced the ‘opportunity costs’ with ‘indirect costs’ throughout this article.

3. Line 96-97 the reference of the migrant population proportion and income was inconsistent, considering the study was carried out in 2013, the statistical yearbook 2013 will be better.

We are grateful for this suggestion. We have revised the year and added the data of 2013 in the article.

4. Line 104 “The hospitals”is not accurate, here the hospital means general hospital?

Thank you for this suggestion. Under the current DOTS strategy in China, TB case were detected through passive case finding method. Most suspected cases were discovered during their treatment in general hospitals and then sent to Center for Prevention and Cure of chronic diseases (CPC) by the health-care providers. So, the general hospitals were the main place to find TB cases. In our article, we have revised it as general hospitals.

5. Line 114-115 the discription was not accurate, both the X-ray and sputum smear was carried out during diagnosis and treatment, please redescribe.

We are grateful for this suggestion. To make the description more accurate, we have revised the statement as follows(line 113-116): The CPC is the institution authorized to provide TB diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring, with a radiologic imaging studies (X-ray) and sputum smear tests while diagnosed for free ,and 5 sputum smear tests and anti-TB drugs for 6-8 months during treatment for free.

6. Line 119-120 The description of “The drugs prescribed every month including auxiliary examinations and subsidiary drugs like……. etc. are not free.” was obscure, may misleading reader that all the drugs including TB drugs was not free. Please clarify.

We are grateful for your suggestion. We have revised this section and listed the drugs and service which are not free during the treatment clearly.

8. Line 125 “1 January 2013 to June 2013” should be modified to “1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013”

Revised. Thank you.

9. Line128: the reason your study excluded the cases older than 59 was considering they might have more comorbidities, yet in the exclude criterions already mentioned the severe comobidities, so if it was necessary to exclude the elderly? Please reconsider.

We are grateful for your suggestion. Besides the reason mentioned above, we also considered that the patients aged above 59 may have more have more respiratory system diseases and higher compliance which may affect the result of our research. To avoid this confounding factor, we excluded this age group. We have added this reason in the article.

10. Line 161-163 the analysis did not included the income lost of companions for the few proportion and did not included the loss time for daily drug intake for the reason of most patients done this on their way to wort….., it would be better to clearly list the exact number replace “a few” or “most”, which will provide more exactly information to the reader. In my opinion , it was more rational to include this part in the analysis.

We have used the exact number in this sentence and thank you for this suggestion.

11. Line 199 : “19 of whom were lost to follow-up” and Line 201 “The rate of loss to follow-up was nearly 4% (19)” was repeat information, Please simplify after integration

Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the description as follows (line 205-207): The present study surveyed 533 eligible TB patients with no co-morbidity, 19 (4%) of whom were lost to follow-up, one of whom died from another disease, and 18 of whom moved to other provinces.

12. Line 204-205 :“They were diagnosed at CPC immediately without consulting to other facilities, so their costs due to TB diagnosis were not calculated”. This information should be described in the method part instead of the results. Another question, for these cases the diagnosis fee should not be ignored considering they also should be confirmed diagnosis in the CPC.

In our study, 176 patients were discovered during health check-ups required by their work units and the suspected cases were sent to the CPC. The CPC provided them with a radiologic imaging studies (X-ray) and sputum smear tests while diagnosed for free. As a result, these patients may not generate costs before diagnosis and we did not survey the costs occurred while diagnosed of this part of patients.

13. Line 209: Under the title of Table 2, should give the N

Revised. Thank you.

14. Table 2 : Please recheck of the number and percentage of Age( years), the total number is only 401, please describe the age of other 103 cases, if the information was missing ,please clarify also.

Thank you for this suggestion. We feel sorry that we made a mistake in this part and we have corrected it with the right number.

15. Table 2: “self-reported economic status*” what was the meaning of *, please describe in the footnote.

We are grateful for your suggestion. Under the table 2, we have added the footnote to describe the meaning of the symbol.

16. Line 211: TB care( diagnosis +treatment), as you have defined the TB care in the method part, so it was not necessary to take the bracket here

Revised. Thank you.

17. Line 224 : Please use “indirect costs” to replace “opportunity costs” that will ensure the consistent with the describe in the Table3

Thank you for this suggestion and we have replaced the ‘opportunity costs’ with ‘indirect costs’ throughout this article.

18. The first line of Table3 and Table 4, Please use “TB care” to replace “TB diagnosis+treatment” and “TB care( diagnosis+treatment) ”

We are grateful for your suggestion. We have revised the first line of these two tables according to your suggestion.

19. Please recheck the ß value in Line 241 Line 245

Revised. Thank you.

20. Line 246 Table6??

Thank you for this suggestion. The results here is presented in table S1, so we deleted the table 6 here and stated the correct table S1 at the end of this paragraph.

21. For the discussion part, there were some repeat information of the results, such as Line 290 …. please go through this part and focus on the “real discussion”

We are grateful for your suggestion. We have reorganized the structure and content of the discussion section according to your suggestion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 0725.docx

Decision Letter 3

Hemant Deepak Shewade

5 Aug 2020

Analysis of the Economic Burden of Diagnosis and Treatment on Patients with Tuberculosis in Bao'an district of Shenzhen city, China

PONE-D-20-06789R3

Dear Dr. Wei-Qing Chen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hemant Deepak Shewade, MBBS MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hemant Deepak Shewade

17 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-06789R3

Analysis of the Economic Burden of Diagnosis and Treatment on Patients with Tuberculosis in Bao'an district of Shenzhen city, China

Dear Dr. Chen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hemant Deepak Shewade

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB diagnosis and various predictor variables using logistic regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (N = 514).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB diagnosis and various predictor variables using logistic regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (N = 514).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Confounder adjusted association between costs due to TB care and various predictor variables using logistic regression models in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (N = 514).

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Summary of independent predictors associated with costs due to TB diagnosis and treatment and care(diagnosis +treatment) in the study of Bao'an district, Shenzhen City, China, 2013 (n = 514).

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editors and reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-06789_R1_hds.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 0619.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 0725.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES