Skip to main content
PMC home page
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0247568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247568

‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities—A qualitative study based on expert interviews

Olivia Biermann 1,*, Raina Klüppelberg 1, Knut Lönnroth 1, Kerri Viney 1,2, Maxine Caws 3,4, Salla Atkins 1,5
Editor: Sonali Sarkar6
PMCID: PMC7951804  PMID: 33705422

Abstract

Background

Active case-finding (ACF), also referred to as community-based tuberculosis screening, is a component of the World Health Organization’s End TB Strategy. ACF has potential benefits but also harms, which need to be carefully assessed when developing and implementing ACF policies. While empirical evidence on the benefits of ACF is still weak, evidence on the harms is even weaker. This study aimed to explore experts’ views on the benefits and harms of ACF for people with presumptive TB and communities.

Methods

This was an exploratory study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 39 experts from international, non-governmental/non-profit organizations, funders, government institutions, international societies, think tanks, universities and research institutions worldwide. Framework analysis was applied.

Results

Findings elaborated perceived benefits of ACF, including reaching vulnerable populations, reducing patient costs, helping raise awareness for tuberculosis among individuals and engaging communities, and reducing tuberculosis transmission. Perceived harms included increasing stigma and discrimination, causing false-positive diagnoses, as well as triggering other unintended consequences related to screening for tuberculosis patients, such as deportation of migrants once confirmed to have tuberculosis. Most of the perceived benefits of ACF could be linked to its objective of finding and treating persons with tuberculosis early (theme 1), while ACF was also perceived as a “double-edged sword” and could cause harms, if inappropriately designed and implemented (theme 2). The analysis underlined the importance of considering the benefits and harms of ACF throughout the screening pathway. The study provides new insights into the perceived benefits and harms of ACF from the perspectives of experts in the field.

Conclusion

This study highlights gaps in the evidence base surrounding ACF and can stimulate further research, debate and analysis regarding the benefits and harms of ACF to inform contextual optimization of design and implementation of ACF strategies.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) remains the world’s leading infectious disease killer, even though it is curable and preventable [1]. Yearly, approximately 10 million people fall ill with TB; the estimated gap between incident and notified TB cases in the world was 2.9 million people in 2019 [1].

So-called “passive case-finding” has previously been the principal approach to TB case-finding [2]. It relies on people with signs and symptoms of TB seeking care. However, this approach is inadequate to ensure early diagnosis and treatment of all people with TB [3] and several reviews have shown that a large pool of TB patients remains undetected despite efforts to improve passive case-finding [4–8]. Moreover, nationally representative TB prevalence surveys have demonstrated that a considerable proportion of persons with undiagnosed TB disease in the community are asymptomatic or have only vague symptoms, which makes them less likely to seek care or to be correctly diagnosed [1, 9, 10].

Active TB case-finding (ACF) is defined as the systematic identification of people with presumed active TB, in a predetermined target group, using tests, examinations or other procedures that can be applied rapidly [11]. ACF is synonymous with systematic screening for active TB, although it implies screening outside of health facilities. It can offer benefits over passive case-finding, especially for those who are asymptomatic or have atypical symptoms in the early stages of disease [1, 12]. ACF is therefore a key component of the WHO End TB Strategy [13], which aligns its targets to those under Goal 3 of the Sustainable Development Goals [14]. ACF aims primarily at improving early detection and treatment of TB. ACF can also identify people who are eligible for treatment of latent TB infection by ruling out active disease and people at high risk of developing TB. Moreover, ACF can help map out risk factors and socio-economic determinants that need to be addressed to prevent TB in a given population [15].

Pre-conditions for implementing ACF are complex [11, 16, 17] and include, for example, high-quality TB diagnosis, treatment, care, management and support for patients [11]. Before embarking on ACF, it is also important to consider who may benefit from ACF. People with a heightened risk of poor treatment outcomes if diagnosis is delayed (eg people living with HIV) may derive a greater potential benefit from ACF compared to others [17]. In this regard, the WHO guidelines for systematic screening contain recommendations for screening specific risk groups for TB [11, 18]. Most of these recommendations are conditional as they depend on the available resources or setting.

Identified benefits of ACF include reduced diagnostic delays [12, 13, 19], improved TB case detection rates [20–22] and decreased patient costs prior to diagnosis [19, 23–25]. At the community level, ACF may lead to reductions in mortality [26], transmission and prevalence of TB [27]. Meanwhile, potential harms associated with ACF comprise unintended negative effects of being correctly diagnosed, eg stigma and discrimination [12, 28], and the harms caused by a false-positive or a false-negative diagnosis [17]. While many articles reflect on the benefits and harms of ACF based on the perspectives of patients [19, 20, 23–25] and the community [21, 22], this article considers experts’ perceptions. Balancing the potential benefits and harms of ACF is vital for everyone, particularly for certain groups of people such as migrants who may risk deportation if TB is diagnosed [17], employees who lack legal protection [17, 29], and people who may not have requested to participate in ACF in the first place [15].

Identifying the potential benefits and harms of a health intervention is often difficult because benefits are intended, whereas harms are unintended and cause unwanted effects [30]. One systematic review has shown that lay people and health personnel tend to overestimate the benefits of screening for health conditions and underestimate the harms [31]. In the context of ACF, a recent survey showed that National TB Programme managers often emphasize the potential benefits of ACF [32].

There is a lack of evidence on the benefits and harms of infectious disease screening in low- and middle-income settings, as much of the available evidence seems to focus on non-communicable disease in high-income countries, eg cancer [30, 33–35]. There is also a lack of evidence regarding the perceptions of benefits and harms, and how such perceptions influence infectious disease policy development and implementation, including for ACF [36].

This study is a first step towards building evidence. The aim of the study was to explore experts’ perceptions of the potential benefits and harms of ACF. The study focuses on the perceptions of international ACF experts as informants. As key stakeholders with many years of experience in the field of ACF policy development and implementation, their perceptions may profoundly influence decision-making related to the development and implementation of national and global ACF policies.

Materials and methods

This was an exploratory qualitative study based on semi-structured expert interviews [37], in line with an interpretive, descriptive approach [38]. The research team used the COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist [39] to report the study (S1 File). The methods have previously been described in detail in a study that was based on information from the same interviews [40]. This study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority in Stockholm (2017/2281-31/2). Participants received background information about the study and provided written informed consent.

Recruitment and sample selection

The interviewees were purposively sampled to include stakeholders involved in ACF policy development and implementation. The research team compiled the initial list of interviewees based on their knowledge of networks of experts and on the published scientific literature [40]. The list was discussed with, expanded and verified by two independent experts in the field. The primary investigator (OB) contacted 50 individuals via email. Of these, 39 (78%) agreed to participate, while 11 (22%) (seven of who were women) declined participation due to lack of time or interest [40]. The 39 participants were based at international, non-governmental/non-profit organizations, funders, government institutions, international societies (such as the International Society of Travel Medicine, but in the TB field), think tanks, universities and research institutions, and one independent consultant (Table 1).

Table 1. Institutional affiliation, sex and geographical location of interviewees.

Female (n) Male (n) Total (n) Total (%)
Interviewees 7 18% 32 82% 39 100%
Affiliation
International organization 2 5.1% 14 35.9% 16 41.0%
Non-governmental/non-profit organization 1 2.6% 3 7.7 4 10.2%
Funder 0 0.0% 4 10.3% 4 10.2%
International society 1 2.6% 1 2.6% 2 5.1%
Think tank 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 1 2.5%
Research institution 1 2.6% 2 5.1% 3 7.6%
University 1 2.6% 5 12.8% 6 15.3%
Government institution 0 0.0% 2 5.1% 2 5.1%
Independent consultant 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 1 2.5%
Country income level based on the World Bank’s classification [41]
Low-income country 1 2.6% 7 17.9% 8 20.5%
Lower middle-income country 1 2.6% 4 10.3% 5 12.8%
Upper middle-income country 1 2.6% 1 2.6% 2 5.1%
High-income country 4 10.3% 20 51.3% 24 61.5%
Open in a new tab

Data collection

OB collected the data between February and May 2018 through semi-structured interviews via the telephone or face-to-face. Of the eleven face-to-face interviews, eight were conducted during a field visit to Nepal, two during WHO meetings and one at an international organization [40].

The first interview was conducted as a pilot, based on which the interview guide was adjusted (S2 File). The guide contained two sections. The first section comprised questions regarding the experience of the interviewee related to ACF projects and policy processes [40]. The second section included questions related to the personal views, values and preferences of the interviewees regarding ACF. For example, we asked about the perceived benefits and risks of ACF for the individual, the community, the health system and compared to other interventions for early case detection (S2 File). This study covers the questions raised in the second section, while the questions in the first section were analyzed independently and without overlap in a separate study [40].

After providing information about the study and obtaining informed written consent, OB conducted the interviews in English. The data collection aimed to ensure that the sample would hold adequate information power to develop new knowledge [42]. Information power implies that the more information (relevant to the study) a sample holds, the fewer participants would be needed [42]. As such, given that the sample provided a lot of relevant information and themes were judged by the team to repeat near the end of the interviews, we found the sample to hold high information power. The typical duration of an interview was 30–60 minutes. OB transcribed 10 of the audio-recorded interviews verbatim, while the rest were transcribed by a professional company [40]. We offered all participants the opportunity to view their transcripts for comments or correction, however, only three participants requested to see the transcripts. No comments or corrections were made by those who chose to view the transcripts. The anonymity and confidentiality of the interviewees were ensured by unique assigned number codes and removing all identifiers except the respondent affiliation in the presentation of the results.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using framework analysis as described by Gale et al. [43] using ATLAS.ti (Scientific Software Development GmbH). The data were analysed abductively; identifying themes a priori, while identifying additional themes from the data. RK and OB independently coded all interviews, resolving differences through discussion. RK developed the initial analytical framework, on which OB and SA provided feedback. RK then charted the data into a framework matrix and interpreted the data by writing memos for each of the seven identified categories. She discussed the memos with OB and SA who verified the analysis. From here, two major themes were identified. Lastly, the categories were mapped onto the TB screening pathway [30] to illustrate their occurrence at different stages of the pathway. Table 2 provides an example of the coding process.

Table 2. Example of the coding process.

Interviewee Quote Code Category Theme
Interviewee 6, international organization, low-income country “So, if you diagnose early, you treat early, so there is no other indirect cost, cost of the severe illnesses. So that is also good.” Reducing costs through early diagnosis Cost reduction ACF benefits are often linked to the overall ACF objective of early diagnosis and treatment
Open in a new tab

The preliminary findings were shared at different scientific conferences, providing unique opportunities for validating the findings [40]. For the presentation of preliminary findings at the World Union Conference on Lung Health, personalized invitations were sent to all 39 interviewees. A few interviewees attended and two provided feedback. As such, the presentation of preliminary findings gave an opportunity for member-checking. No direct changes were made based on the validation and member-checking, but these processes helped to reflect on the findings critically. Furthermore, triangulation and constant discussion across different researchers from diverse backgrounds throughout the analysis helped ensure comprehensiveness and a reflexive analysis of the data [44]. Moreover, great emphasis was put on fair dealing in the presentation of the results to ensure a wide range of interviewees and their viewpoints would be represented [44] and quoted.

OB is a doctoral student in public health sciences, focusing on qualitative research and ACF. While OB conducted the interviews, she had an appropriate “distance” to the participants, not knowing any of the participants personally. She also had an equal interest in exploring both the potential benefits and harms of ACF. RK is a nurse with a master’s degree in global health and experience in qualitative research. The multidisciplinary research team furthermore consisted of a medical doctor (KL), an epidemiologist (KV), a microbiologist (MC) and a social scientist (SA). KL previously worked at the World Health Organization where he coordinated the development of the systematic screening guidelines. The team’s diverse background and experience helped reflect on results from different perceptions. The varied backgrounds and perceptions of ACF were balanced through careful triangulation of views and perspectives.

Results

We identified two overarching themes in the data: 1) ACF benefits are often linked to the overall ACF objective of early diagnosis and treatment and 2) ACF-related harms are often caused by inappropriate implementation. On the one hand, the categories identified included as benefits: reaching vulnerable populations, reducing patient costs, helping raise awareness for TB among individuals and engaging communities, and reducing TB transmission. On the other hand, increased stigma and discrimination, causing false-positive diagnoses, and triggering other unintended consequences were identified as harms. We mapped the categories on the perceived benefits and harms of ACF along the screening pathway, dividing the categories according to benefits and harms (see Fig 1). We thereby captured the importance of considering the benefits and harms at different stages of ACF to reap the potential benefits and mitigate potential harms.

Fig 1. Considering benefits and harms of ACF throughout the screening pathway.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

This figure shows the seven-step screening pathway (adapted from WHO Europe [30]) for active tuberculosis case-finding from the identification of a target population to outcome reporting. The categories on the perceived benefits and harms of ACF are mapped along the pathway.

ACF benefits are linked to the overall ACF objective of early diagnosis and treatment

The theme on ACF benefits focused strongly on participants’ emphasis of finding and treating TB patients early through ACF. ‘Early’ was perceived as diagnosing someone with TB when the disease is less advanced, the patient is less infectious and the chances to be cured are high. As such, many interviewees described the close link between early diagnosis, treatment and improved treatment outcomes, and many other benefits of ACF, which are described in the following sections. A common stance was that ACF is necessary to complement passive case-finding:

“The benefits will vary from country to country (…). What we see with traditional case-finding: either there are long delays with patients accessing TB services and getting put on appropriate treatment, or [they are] missed entirely. (…) Passive case-finding is not really reaching as many people as it needs to, soon enough and efficiently enough.”–Interviewee 13, non-profit organization, upper middle-income country

According to the interviewees, ACF could reduce TB transmission among individuals and communities screened, eg by finding TB patients early before they infect others.

Contact investigation could help identify a TB patient’s household or social contacts with TB and prevent them from transmitting the disease further. Yet, the interviewees also emphasized that the reduction of transmission could be theoretical, hinting at the lack of evidence to back up these claims.

The interviewees, especially those based in low-income and lower middle-income countries, described how access to healthcare was limited in certain areas, such as in urban slums or remote villages, eg due to lack of infrastructure or high transportation costs. The benefit of ACF was closely linked to providing services effectively to vulnerable participants. Interviewees underscored the notion that ACF could help reach vulnerable populations by overcoming access barriers to diagnostic services, eg by making free services available within communities to accommodate the needs of those people who may not be able attend screening otherwise.

“Walking for half an hour, two hours to have a check-up is not satisfactory. It’s not desirable. It’s not acceptable by the clients, you know? So, in the form of ACF going out to the community has many benefits.”–Interviewee, 3, government institution, low-income country

Furthermore, the benefits of ACF were seen to link with a potentially high yield of TB cases, if ACF was targeted at groups with a high risk for TB, such as people living in congregate settings or among immunocompromised individuals. One participant explained that: “A small proportion of patients may never come to the facility. That’s when you need to design a way to reach them, and ACF is a way to reach them” (interviewee 30, funder, high-income country). Another interviewee mentioned inconvenient opening hours of health facilities as a major argument for doing ACF:

“People are not willing to come to the health facilities (…). They are the laborers, they are the drivers, like this type of profession, and they are very busy. They totally deny coming to our health facilities because they have to work. Otherwise, they cannot run their family. That’s one of the major issues. So, we have to launch these types of activities which are friendly to that target group.”–Interviewee 5, government institution, low-income country

Patient costs also emerged as an important consideration when doing ACF. The interviewees had similar opinions regarding the potential of ACF to reduce patient costs by facilitating early diagnosis and treatment. Costs included transportation fees that individuals would pay to visit health facilities, charges for consultations, tests and treatments, potentially related to multiple health care visits prior to the correct diagnosis being obtained, as well as indirect costs due to income loss.

An important category that linked with finding patients early was raising awareness of TB while performing ACF. The interviewees emphasized that ACF could help raise awareness about TB and engage communities.

“I have seen that with ACF you’ll raise awareness. You sensitize the community, which will be beneficial in the long run.”–Interviewee 6, international organization, low-income country

Respondents described how awareness-raising could help people recognize TB symptoms, understand the mode of transmission, understand that the disease is curable and create a demand for TB care and healthcare overall. Awareness-raising was also potentially linked to early diagnosis, as symptoms were quickly recognized. The involvement of community health workers in ACF could furthermore support awareness-raising and engagement.

“An advantage that I see (…) if you put in place an ACF programme: it generates a kind of buzz around the issue. So it’s also a way of advocating for the disease and making it more known and we really need that for TB because especially in our countries people (…) think it doesn’t exist anymore.”–Interviewee 17, international organization, high-income country

In terms of barriers for awareness-raising and community engagement, one participant affiliated with a government institution in a low-income country mentioned that communities may lack trust in the government and government-supported initiatives. Another participant working for an international organization in a lower middle-income country thought that health workers’ high workloads may prevent them from spending additional time on awareness-raising when doing ACF.

ACF-related harms are often caused by inappropriate implementation

The interviewees described how ACF-related harms were often caused by inappropriate implementation, which is not to say that well-implemented ACF would automatically neutralize all possible harms. For example, ACF may be “set up as a parallel system, which ultimately drives newly diagnosed people into the failing system” (interviewee 24, international organization, high-income country). A failing health system could be one with insufficient diagnostic and treatment capacity, interviewees explained. ACF may also not be sustainable in the long term given the higher resource requirements for ACF compared to passive case-finding, leaving “the whole government almost paralyzed to take it [ACF] on”, eg once external funding ceases (interviewee 2, international organization, low-income country). Beyond funding, the interviewees also highlighted the potential for ACF to overburden a health system and divert resources away from other health services.

Inappropriate implementation could also cause unintended harm, in terms of increasing stigma and discrimination if people’s confidentiality and privacy were not safeguarded. Conducting TB screening in public spaces, workplaces or people’s homes, visible to community members, co-workers, neighbors and families may stigmatize TB patients. The stigma can be in relation to TB itself, but also due to other negative associations with the disease, such as HIV infection or poverty. The lack of confidentiality and privacy in ACF was thought “to exacerbate the existing prejudice against patients with TB” (interviewee 32, university, high-income country).

“In many communities, people wonder: ‘What are the doctors or nurses doing in that house? Something is wrong.’ So, there’s that kind of stigma, just a blowing off people’s right to keep their health problems confidential.”–Interviewee 1, university, high-income country

Interviewees explained how the fear of stigma and discrimination became apparent as TB patients refused to share their address for contact-tracing, as they were afraid that future visits from health workers may disclose their TB status. Moreover, the interviewees felt that this fear could prevent patients from seeking healthcare. Patients might not collect their TB medications at all, or they may prefer to travel longer distances to attend another clinic, hoping to remain anonymous. Furthermore, interviewees stressed the importance of considering stigma when implementing ACF, eg:

“People in the community squeeze their face when we talk about TB still. [This] means there’s stigma. So, that may affect individuals badly. This should be very carefully managed. You see? That’s their right.”–Interviewee 8, non-governmental/non-profit organization, low-income country

Yet, one interviewee stressed that stigmatization and de-stigmatization attributed to ACF are two sides of the same coin:

“You could start getting in the argument about the stigma associated with the disease, but I could immediately flip that around and say: ‘Well, one way to destigmatize it is to make it a lot more normal to expect the TB truck to be in your community and available to people who want to be screened’, and do away with the concept that this [TB] only happens to poor people.”–Interviewee 21, university, high-income country

Interviewees, mostly from high-income settings, underlined that ACF may lead to false-positive diagnoses of TB, especially when screening in low-incidence and low-risk populations where ACF may cause “more harm than good” (interviewee 24, international organization, high-income country). A false-positive diagnosis was said to lead to unnecessary treatment and related side effects, costs and stigma. The interviewees described that false-positive diagnoses and related harm may occur especially in settings with suboptimal diagnostic tools:

“You knock on someone’s door or you bother them while they are out in the street; then the ethical bar is significantly higher. You need to actually provide some benefit to someone and that’s where screening someone, a healthy person minding their own business, is a much more ethically and technically challenging thing because you need to make sure you are not harming people by giving them false information. But, of course, a screening test is really imperfect; usually it has suboptimal sensitivity and suboptimal specificity. (…) The reason why I use them is they are cheap. So, it [ACF] is quite a morally fraught activity.”–Interviewee 24, international organization, high-income country

Finally, interviewees mentioned potential harm for patients due to other unintended negative consequences of ACF, such as those caused by inappropriate radiation protection during X-ray screening. Moreover, interviewees described that ACF often identified asymptomatic patients who may not believe their TB diagnosis, and subsequently have limited treatment compliance and risk developing drug resistance. In the context of migrant screening, ACF may lead to deportation of migrants once confirmed to have TB, interviewees warned. Unintended consequences may also occur when ACF is conducted in a “failing system”, as mentioned above. For instance, a TB patient may be identified through ACF, but the provision of TB treatment may not be ensured or may be related to direct or indirect costs for the patient. ACF may be a “double-edged sword”, if poorly implemented:

“It [ACF] has two sides: If it is well designed, it can increase your case detection (…), reduce delays and it can reduce probably disease burden and patient cost. But if it is (…) poorly implemented, it can cause a lot of problems (…). So, it’s a double-edged sword–this is a lesson learned.”–Interviewee 11, international organization, high-income country

Discussion

Our qualitative study exploring experts’ views on the potential benefits and harms of ACF for presumptive TB patients and communities revealed the importance of considering the benefits and harms of ACF throughout the screening pathway to capitalize on them. On the one hand, the perceived benefits of ACF included reaching vulnerable populations, reducing patient costs, helping raise awareness for TB among individuals and engaging communities, as well as reducing TB transmission. On the other hand, the perceived harms of ACF comprised increasing stigma and discrimination, causing false-positive diagnoses, as well as triggering other unintended negative consequences. Overall, most of the benefits of ACF were tied to its objective of finding and treating persons with TB early (theme 1), while most of the perceived harms were said to be caused by inappropriate implementation of ACF (theme 2).

Many of the perceived benefits and harms of ACF are in line with the available evidence in the field, but this study also shed light on potential benefits and harms which are not yet well documented in the literature. First, the perceived benefit that ACF reaches vulnerable populations may be reflected in studies that show reduced delays in seeking healthcare [12, 13, 19], improved TB case detection [20–22] and increased TB case notifications [19, 45–47]. Second, recent studies have shown that ACF reduces patient costs [19, 23–25], which matches with expert perceptions and seems particularly important given that between 19% and 83% of TB patient face catastrophic costs when accessing TB care, which means that they spend 20% or more of their annual household income on TB care [1]. Project Axshya in India systematically assessed the impact of ACF and advocacy, communication and social mobilisation at the individual and community levels when compared to passive case-finding. The study found improved case notification rates, reduced diagnostic delay, and reduced patient costs [19]. Third, the perceived benefit of ACF in reducing TB transmission is supported by modelling studies [48–51] and two recently published cluster randomized controlled trials [26, 27]. One trial showed an increase of case detection as a result of inviting household contacts to attend a clinic for symptom screening, physical examination and chest radiography, and found reductions in all-cause mortality [26]. The other trial evaluated the effectiveness of community-wide screening compared to passive case-finding and demonstrated reduced prevalence of TB [27]. Finally, the perceived harm of increasing stigma and discrimination has also been discussed in the literature [12, 28]. Although, empirical evidence remains weak, potentially because it may be difficult to attribute increased or decreased stigma and discrimination to a single intervention. In addition to these topics already highlighted in the literature, the interviewees noted potential benefits and harms which have a limited evidence base, such as that ACF can help raise awareness of TB among individuals and engage communities, and that false-positive diagnoses and other unintended negative consequences due to ACF cause harm.

The concerns about the benefits and harms of ACF for TB appear to be similar to those related to screening for other health conditions [33, 52–56]. However, the harms that have been described in other screening initiatives may be more closely related to the use of a certain diagnostic tool and related health outcomes, while our study showed that the perceived harms of ACF occur throughout the screening pathway. The perceived benefits of ACF that have been observed in other types of screening include awareness-raising, which, in the context of cervical cancer, include increased participation in screening [52] and, in the context of leprosy, a shortened the delay between the onset of disease and diagnosis [31]. Moreover, reduced transmission has been described as a potential benefit of malaria screening [54]. The perceived harms have also been described in screening studies for other health conditions, eg false-positive diagnoses and related psychological consequences have been well-documented in the context of cancer screening [30, 33, 57], and medical complications which have been described in atrial fibrillation screening where people had a false-positive result [55]. Moreover, a systematic review documented poor linkages to care for patients screened positive for non-communicable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa [56]. Apart from the similarities mentioned, screening may also have opposite effects, eg decreasing inequities by reaching vulnerable populations was a perceived benefit of ACF, while the literature on cancer screening has described that screening may increase inequities because people from higher socio-economic groups are more likely to participate in screening than those with a low socio-economic status [58–60].

This study identified what the perceived benefits and harms of ACF are and when they may appear along the screening pathway, leading to considerations about how to balance the benefits and harms in a specific context. Interviewees from different contexts had a variety of perspectives on the potential benefits and harms of ACF. For instance, it seemed that most interviewees who raised concerns about false-positive diagnoses were based in high-income countries, whereas concerns about the ability to link TB patients to treatment and care was mainly voiced by interviewees based in low- and middle-income countries. Such contextual considerations may help ensure that ACF is well-designed and implemented. The interviewees expressed support for ACF, if the design and implementation is appropriate to minimise harm, while maximising the benefits. This is aligned to a utilitarian perspective, where the implementation of a screening programme would be justified if its benefits outweigh its harms at a reasonable cost [60]. However, it may be challenging to quantify certain factors (eg increased stigma) and draw direct comparisons between the benefits and harms (eg reduced transmission versus false-positive results). Evaluating the potential benefits and harms of ACF may be even more challenging in low- and middle-income settings, as many do not have established processes for the development of screening policies in place [61].

Overall, our findings suggest that benefits and harms of ACF must be considered throughout the screening pathway. This is, at its core, about the ethical conduct of ACF. Conducting ACF ethically means that there is a system to ensure that TB patients are linked to treatment and care to avoid unintended negative consequences of ACF, as interviewees described. This finding echoes the statement in 1968 by Wilson and Jungner [16] that the ability to treat the condition adequately when discovered is “perhaps the most important” of all screening criteria. Special attention should therefore be paid to that criterion, given that the availability of the most accurate (and often most expensive) screening and diagnostic tests as well as treatment varies greatly across different settings [15]. Furthermore, part and parcel of the ethical conduct of ACF are confidentiality, privacy and informed consent. The necessity of informed consent has been signaled by WHO [11], while it is also important to consider that informed consent does not remove responsibility for any harm caused through screening [62]. The understanding and promotion of informed consent may be facilitated by training health workers in communicating the potential benefits and harms of screening [30]. Marmot and colleagues [35] state, and it corresponds with the findings of this study, that “clear communication of these harms and benefits (…) is of utmost importance and goes to the heart of how a modern health system should function.”

Future research

This study identified a range of perceived potential benefits and harms of ACF, some of which have not been studied in detail. Research is needed to understand how perceptions on benefits and harms influence ACF policy development and implementation, how these perceptions differ between settings, and to better quantify the benefits and harms of ACF. This quantification will require a standardization of measurements of the benefits and harms, which could complement existing frameworks for balancing the benefits, harms, costs, values and preferences, such as the Evidence to Decision frameworks [63], to support decision-makers. In addition, high quality evidence is needed on the benefits and harms of ACF for the health system, including the cost of screening and alternative costs, eg of possible de-prioritization of passive case-finding or overall health system strengthening. Research should also explore the perspectives of health care workers and TB patients, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and evaluate whether or how ACF contributes to raising awareness about TB and decreasing TB-related stigma.

Strengths and limitations

This study involved a large number and diverse range of experts, key stakeholders in ACF policy development and implementation. Collectively, the interviewees have had many years of experience in the field of ACF, which, together with the member-checking carried out with selected interviewees, increase the study’s trustworthiness, including its confirmability and transferability [64]. However, the transferability of the findings of this study may still be limited given that only a minority of the interviewees were from low- and middle-income countries (38% of the interviewees) [40]. Nevertheless, all had working experience in low-and middle-income countries. Seven of the interviews with experts from low- and middle-income countries were conducted with experts from Nepal. Though all of them have different affiliations, their perspectives may be overrepresented. The results may furthermore be limited as an even smaller minority were women (18% of the interviewees) [40]. The gender bias reflects the lack of gender parity in leadership positions in the field of global health [65]. At the time of the data collection in 2018, there may have been a lack of equal representation in terms of gender and country income level in high-level committees and working groups, and some of these committees informed our sampling base. Recognizing this lack of balance in recruitment, we paid careful attention to patterns in the findings in terms of country income level or gender and highlighted the affiliations of interviewees quoted. We did not find systematic differences in perceptions according to country classification or gender. Where differences were noted we included these in the results.

Conclusion

This study provides new insights into the perceived benefits and harms of ACF for presumptive TB patients and communities from the perspectives of experts in the field. Most of the perceived benefits of ACF could be linked to its objective of finding and treating persons with TB early, while ACF was also perceived as a ‘double-edged sword’ and could cause harms if inappropriately designed and implemented. The analysis underlined the importance of considering the benefits and harms of ACF throughout the screening pathway and the need for a deeper understanding of the actual benefits and harms of ACF. We hope this study will stimulate further research, debate and analysis of the benefits and harms of ACF, building a basis upon which better policies and practices can be built.

Supporting information

S1 File. COREQ checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (423.9KB, pdf)
S2 File. Interview guide.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (37.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, the authors thank the interviewees who generously shared their time to participate in the study. The authors also thank Anna Borgström, writing instructor at Karolinska Institutet University Library, for her valuable feedback in writing this manuscript.

Abbreviations

ACF

Active Case-Finding

COREQ

COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research

TB

Tuberculosis

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly as they are highly sensitive. In view of this, as part of the consent process prior to their participation in the study, we specified that confidentiality and anonymity would be strictly maintained and that only the participating authors would have access to the data collected. With these assurances, ethical clearance was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority in Stockholm (2017/2281-31/2). For questions regarding data requests, please contact: maike.winters@ki.se.

Funding Statement

OB, KL and MC are funded by the EU-Horizon 2020-funded IMPACT-TB project (grant 733174). The grant was received by MC. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO. Global TB Report 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.WHO. An expanded DOTS framework for effective tuberculosis control. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ho J, Fox GJ, Marais BJ. Passive case finding for tuberculosis is not enough. Int J Mycobacteriol. 2016;374–378. 10.1016/j.ijmyco.2016.09.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Getahun H, Kittikraisak W, Heilig CM, Corbett EL, Ayles H, Cain KP, et al. Development of a standardized screening rule for tuberculosis in people living with HIV in resource-constrained settings: individual participant data meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000391. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Morrison J, Pai M, Hopewell P C. Tuberculosis and latent tuberculosis infection in close contacts of people with pulmonary tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:359–368. 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70071-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fox GJ, Barry SE, Britton WJ, Marks G. Contact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2013;41(1):140–56. 10.1183/09031936.00070812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Baussano I, Williams BG, Nunn P, Beggiato M, Fedeli U, Scano F. Tuberculosis incidence in prisons: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000381. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beijer U, Wolf A, Fazel S. Prevalence of tuberculosis, hepatitis C virus, and HIV in homeless people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:859–870. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70177-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hoa NB, Sy DN, Nhung NV, Tiemersma EW, Borgdorff MW, Cobelens FGJ. A national survey of tuberculosis prevalence in Vietnam. Bull World Health Organ. 2010; 88:273–280. 10.2471/BLT.09.067801 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ayles H, Schaap A, Nota A, Sismanidis C, Tembwe R, De Haaset P, et al. Prevalence of tuberculosis, HIV and respiratory symptoms in two Zambian communities: implications for tuberculosis control in the era of HIV. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e5602. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WHO. Systematic screening for active tuberculosis: principles and recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kranzer K, Afnan-Holmes H, Tomlin K, Golub JE, Shapiro AE, Schaap A, et al. The benefits to communities and individuals of screening for active tuberculosis disease: a systematic review. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17:432–46. 10.5588/ijtld.12.0743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.WHO. The End TB Strategy. Global strategy and targets for tuberculosis prevention, care and control after 2015. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015a. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.UN. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. USA, New York: United Nations; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lönnroth K, Corbett E, Golub J, Godfrey-Faussett P, Uplekar M, Weil D, et al. Systematic screening for active tuberculosis: rationale, definitions and key considerations. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(3):289–298. 10.5588/ijtld.12.0797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1968. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.WHO. Systematic screening for active tuberculosis: an operational guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.WHO. Rapid communication on systematic screening for tuberculosis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shewade H D, Gupta V, Satyanarayana S, Pandey P, Bajpai UN, Tripathy JP, et al. Patient characteristics, health seeking and delays among new sputum smear positive TB patients identified through active case finding when compared to passive case finding in India. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213345. 10.1371/journal.pone.0213345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Corbett EL, Bandason T, Duong T, Dauya E, Makamure B, Churchyard GJ, et al. Comparison of two active case-finding strategies for community-based diagnosis of symptomatic smear-positive tuberculosis and control of infectious tuberculosis in Harare, Zimbabwe (DETECTB): a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1244–53. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61425-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eang M, Satha P, Yadav R, Morishita F, Nishikiori N, van-Maaren P, et al. Early detection of tuberculosis through community-based active case finding in Cambodia. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:469. 10.1186/1471-2458-12-469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Miller AC, Golub JE, Cavalcante SC, Durovni B, Moulton LH, Fonseca Z, et al. Controlled trial of active tuberculosis case finding in a Brazilian favela. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010;14:720–726. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gurung SC, Dixit K, Rai B, Caws M, Paudel PR, Dhital R, et al. The role of active case finding in reducing patient incurred catastrophic costs for tuberculosis in Nepal. Infect Dis Poverty. 2019;8(1):99. 10.1186/s40249-019-0603-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morishita F, Yadav RP, Eang MT, Saint S, Nishikiori N. Mitigating Financial Burden of Tuberculosis through Active Case Finding Targeting Household and Neighbourhood Contacts in Cambodia. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162796. 10.1371/journal.pone.0162796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shewade HD, Gupta V, Satyanarayana S, Kharate A, Sahai KN, Muralif L, et al. Active case finding among marginalized and vulnerable populations reduces catastrophic costs due to tuberculosis diagnosis. Global Health Action. 2018;11:1494897. 10.1080/16549716.2018.1494897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fox GJ, Nhung NV, Sy DN, Hoa NLP, Anh LTN, Anh NT, et al. Household-Contact Investigation for Detection of Tuberculosis in Vietnam. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(3):221–9. 10.1056/NEJMoa1700209 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Marks GB, Nguyen NV, Nguyen PTB, Nguyen TA, Nguyen HB, Tran KH, et al. Community-wide Screening for Tuberculosis in a High-Prevalence Setting. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(14):1347–1357. 10.1056/NEJMoa1902129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Uplekar M, Creswell J, Ottmani SE, Weil D, Sahu S, Lönnroth K. Programmatic approaches to screening for active tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(10):1248–56. 10.5588/ijtld.13.0199 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.WHO. Guidance on ethics of tuberculosis prevention, care and control. WHO/HTM/TB/2010.16. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.WHO Europe. Screening programmes: a short guide. Increase effectiveness, maximize benefits and minimize harm. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:407–19. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Biermann O, Tran P, Viney K, Caws M, Lönnroth K, Annerstedt KS. Active case-finding policy development, implementation and scale-up in high-burden countries: a mixed-methods survey with National TB Programme managers and document review. PLOS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0240696. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, et al. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2013;17:1–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K. False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2000;4(5). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M. The Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2205–2240. 10.1038/bjc.2013.177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Biermann O, Lönnroth K, Caws M, Viney K. Factors influencing active tuberculosis case-finding policy development and implementation: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2019;0:e031284. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Holloway I, Wheeler S. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare, third edition. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Thorne S, Reimer Kirkham, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytical challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2004;3(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Biermann O, Atkins S, Lönnroth K, Caws M, Viney K. “Power plays plus push”: Experts’ insights into the development and implementation of active tuberculosis case-finding policies globally, a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e036285. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.World Bank. Classifying countries by income. Available from: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/stories/the-classification-of-countries-by-income.html [accessed on 30 November 2019].
  • 42.Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research. 2016;26(13):1753–1760. 10.1177/1049732315617444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gale N, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000. January 1;320(7226):50–2. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Blok L, Sahu S, Creswell J, Alba S, Stevens R, Bakker MI. Comparative meta-analysis of TB contact investigation interventions in eleven high burden countries. PLoS One. 2015;10:3:e0119822. 10.1371/journal.pone.0119822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Creswell J, Codlin AJ, Andre E, Micek MA, Bedru A, Carter EJ, et al. Results from early programmatic implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF testing in nine countries. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:2. 10.1186/1471-2334-14-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Creswell J, Sahu S, Blok L, Bakker MI, Stevens R, Ditiu L. A multi-site evaluation of innovative approaches to increase TB case notification: summary results. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:4:9:e94465. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Murray CJL, Salomon JA. Modeling the impact of global tuberculosis control strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:13881–13886. 10.1073/pnas.95.23.13881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Borgdorff M W, Floyd K, Broekmans J. Interventions to reduce tuberculosis mortality and transmission in low- and middle- income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80:217–227. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dowdy D, Golub J, Chaisson R, Saraceni V. Heterogeneity in tuberculosis transmission and the role of geographical hotspots in propagating epidemics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:9557–9562. 10.1073/pnas.1203517109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Legrand J, Sanchez A, Le Pont F, Camacho L, Larouze B. Modelling the impact of tuberculosis control strategies in highly endemic overcrowded prisons. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Musa J, Achenbach CJ, O’Dwyer LC, Evans CT, McHugh M, Hou L, et al. Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0183924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Fürst T, Cavaliero A, Lay S, Dayer C, Chan S, Smrekar, et al. Retrospective active case finding in Cambodia: An innovative approach to leprosy control in a low-endemic country. Acta Trop. 2018;180:26–32. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.12.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hsiang MS, Ntshalintshali N, Kang Dufour MS, Dlamini N, Nhlabathi N, Vilakati S, et al. Active Case Finding for Malaria: A 3-Year National Evaluation of Optimal Approaches to Detect Infections and Hotspots Through Reactive Case Detection in the Low-transmission Setting of Eswatini. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;7(17):1316–1325. 10.1093/cid/ciz403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Jonas DE, Kahwati LC, Yun JDY, Middleton JC, Coker-Schwimmer M, Asher GN, et al. Screening for Atrial Fibrillation With Electrocardiography: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;320:485–498. 10.1001/jama.2018.4190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kane J, Landes M, Carroll C, Nolen A, Sodhi S. A systematic review of primary care models for non-communicable disease interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Fam Pract. 2017:18. 10.1186/s12875-017-0613-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Barratt A. Cancer screening–benefits, harms and making and informed choice. Aust Fam Physician. 2006;35(1–2):39–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W, et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:712–8. 10.1093/ije/dyr008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Szczepura A, Price C, Gumber A. Breast and bowel cancer screening uptake patterns over 15 years for UK south Asian ethnic minority populations, corrected for differences in socio-demographic characteristics. BMC Publ Health. 2008;8:1–15. 10.1186/1471-2458-8-346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Deandrea S, Molina-Barceló A, Uluturk A, Moreno J, Neamtiu L, Peiró-Pérez R, et al. Presence, characteristics and equity of access to breast cancer screening programmes in 27 European countries in 2010 and 2014. Results from an international survey. Prev Med (Baltim). 2016;91:250–63. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Seedat F, Cooper J, Cameron L, Stranges S, Kandala NB, Burton H, et al. International comparisons of screening policy-making: a systematic review. University of Warwick and PHG foundation; 2014. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/444227/FINAL_REPORT_International_Screening.pdf [accessed on 14 May 2020]. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Shickle D, Chadwick R. The ethics of screening: Is ‘screeningitis’ an incurable disease? J Med Ethics. 1994;20:12–18. 10.1136/jme.20.1.12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. 10.1136/bmj.i2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Talib Y, States Burke K, Barry M. Women leaders in global health. Lancet. 2017:5(6);PE565–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Susan Hepp

1 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-20600

‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities – a qualitative study based on expert interviews

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Biermann,

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.

Three experts in the field reviewed your manuscript and have several comments that need to be addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Susan Hepp

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

2. 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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 is an important paper highlighting both benefits and harms for Active Case Finding, in the current context where most program managers would emphasize the benefits and often not bringing up the harms. The paper in general is well written. However there are a few points which the authors need to address before this manuscript can be considered for publication, i.e.:

1. Please describe the Qualitative approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, narrative research) and guiding theory if appropriate; identifying as well the research paradigm (e.g., postpositivist, constructivist/interpretivist) if possible

2. Please elaborate the researchers’ characteristics that may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants, assumptions, and/or presuppositions; potential or actual interaction between researchers’ characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results, and/or transferability

3. Please elaborate the criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary (i.e. sampling saturation);

4. The authors reported efforts for member checking, which in the end didn’t seem to enhance trustworthiness substantially. Thus, please confirm whether the researchers have adequately employed other techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (e.g., audit trail, triangulation);

5. The biggest disappointment was that the characteristics of the experts were highly skewed to male from high income countries. This could have been prevented early on during recruitment as there are actually enough experts from low- and middle- income countries, with richer insights from the ground. In view of this limitation, I would suggest to at least present a matrix which allows examination whether there are variations of themes between experts from High Income vs Low- and Middle Income Countries.

Reviewer #2: 1. The conclusions are drawn from the data.

2. Statistical analysis is not applicable as this is a qualitative research.

3. Data has not been shared citing ethical issues. However, anonymised data, removing the remarks that could have pointed to the participants' identity, could have been shared.

4. Manuscript is well written. But some of the concerns are as follows.

1. Aim of the study is not very clear. Whether the aim is to understand the perceptions of the international experts regarding ACF and how they influence policy or as claimed the first step in exploring the actual benefits and harms of ACF. If the attempt is to find the benefits as well as the harms of ACF, the participants should have been chosen from a wider range of stakeholders. All participants in this study were involved in ACF policy development and implementation. Therefore their opinions are likely to be influenced by their professional responsibilities.

2. The impact of ACF depends a lot on the context. Stigma, discrimination and the ability of the health systems to support activities like ACF may be country specific. Therefore it would have been better if the experts were asked to opine on the benefits and harms of ACF done in specific settings rather than in general.

3. In the figure,

- 'false positive' is shown as the harm coming from diagnosis. False positives are results of the screening tests which are not basis for initiation of treatment. Confirmed diagnosis is done as per the diagnostic algorithms followed in the National TB programmes of the countries after referral reporting. After diagnosis, all positives are supposed to be true positives;

- instead of writing 'unintended negative consequences', which is non-specific, it is better to write the specific codes that emerged from the interviews. Figures should be self-explanatory.

4. In response to the point asking whether the transcripts were returned to the participants for comments or corrections in the COREQ checklist, it is mentioned as page no.7. However, in the manuscript, it is stated that all participants were invited to the conference where the findings were presented, but only few attended. The transcripts should have been shared with all participants for validation.

5. Overall, the paper is a novel attempt to throw light on the unintended harms that may occur with ACF, but what is lacking is the context, which would determine both the benefits and harm.

Reviewer #3: Summary

This is a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 39 experts from various organisations and institutions worldwide. The analysis underlined the importance of considering the benefits and harms of ACF throughout the screening pathway. The study provides new insights into the perceived benefits and harms of ACF from the perspectives of experts in the field. The study was able to provide a nice summary of all the benefits of ACF to communities and participants. This study highlights gaps in the evidence base surrounding ACF which are important and need to be taken into account when active case finding programmes are implemented. I think this work is relevant and adds to the very scanty literature in this field.

Major comments

ACF-related harms are clearly articulated and seem well thought through however I am not sure that the theme around inappropriate implementation being the cause is substantiated enough in the text. It seems that even if done well, there are still significant challenges and harms that can be caused.

The discussion is done very nicely where the expert impressions are substantiated with literature from the field.

Discussion is a bit long – may consider reducing it a bit.

Minor comments

Abstract – First sentence in the results is far too long and difficult to follow – please consider splitting it into shorter sentences.

Introduction, Line 83: “It” should be replaced with “ACF” to be clearer

Introduction, Line 84: remove “help”

Introduction, Line 85-86: make this clearer by splitting the sentence?

Introduction , Lines 89-91: please rephrase as sentence is vague and unclear

Introduction, Line 96: missing word “the”

Introduction, Line 98 – 105: the introduction does not clearly state how this study is different to what is already reported in the literature. Are these findings from patients or community members? Would be good to differentiate from this study to show how this study adds value.

Introduction, Line 109: split into two words “laypeople”

Table 1 – I wonder if it is not possible to streamline the organisations a bit – not sure International institution and international society or non-profit organisation for instance are different types of institutions.

Table 2 – start on a new page

Methods, Page 10 Line 187: word missing before “conferences’’

Results, Page 10, Line 200: include “as benefits’’ after “included’’

Discussion, Page 18, Line 378: perceived is repeated twice in the sentence

Discussion, Line 395: “and” is missing

Discussion, Line 397 – 399: rather emphasise the mortality reduction case detection by placing that at the end of the sentence.

**********

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: Sonali Sarkar

Reviewer #3: Yes: Salome Charalambous

[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. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0247568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247568.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

29 Oct 2020

Point-by-point reviewers’ comments and authors’ answers

Title of the manuscript: “‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities – a qualitative study based on expert interviews”

Reviewer 1: anonymous

1. Please describe the Qualitative approach (e.g., ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenology, narrative research) and guiding theory if appropriate; identifying the research paradigm as well (e.g., postpositivist, constructivist/ interpretivist) if possible

We have described the qualitative research as well as the research paradigm accordingly on p. 6 (lines 131-132): “This was an exploratory qualitative study based on semi-structured expert interviews [34], in line with an interpretive, descriptive approach [35].”

As a reference for the interpretive, descriptive approach we have taken, we added the following reference: Thorne S, Reimer Kirkham, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytical challenge in interpretive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2004;3(1).

2. Please elaborate the researchers’ characteristics that may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications/experience, relationship with participants, assumptions, and/or presuppositions; potential or actual

interaction between researchers’ characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results, and/or transferability

We have elaborated on this in p. 11 (lines 212-222): “OB is a doctoral student in public health sciences, focusing on qualitative research and ACF. While OB conducted the interviews, she had an appropriate “distance” to the participants, not knowing any of the participants personally. She also had an equal interest in exploring both the potential benefits and harms of ACF. RK is a nurse with a master’s degree in global health and experience in qualitative research. The multidisciplinary research team furthermore consisted of a medical doctor (KL), an epidemiologist (KV), a microbiologist (MC) and a social scientist (SA). KL previously worked at the World Health Organization where he coordinated the development of the systematic screening guidelines. The team’s diverse background and experience helped reflect on results from different perceptions. The varied backgrounds and perceptions of ACF were balanced through careful triangulation of views and perspectives.”

3. Please elaborate the criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary (i.e. sampling saturation)

We have elaborated more on the concept of information power, which we applied instead of the concept of saturation, on p. 9 (lines 172-176): “Information power implies that the more information (relevant to the study) a sample holds, the fewer participants would be needed [39]. As such, given that the sample provided a lot of relevant information and themes were judged by the team to repeat near the end of the interviews, we found the sample to hold high information power.”

4. The authors reported efforts for member checking, which in the end didn’t seem to enhance trustworthiness substantially. Thus, please confirm whether the researchers have adequately employed other techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (e.g., audit trail, triangulation)

We clarified how we additionally triangulated the data on p. 10, lines 206-210: “Furthermore, triangulation and constant discussion across different researchers from diverse backgrounds throughout the analysis helped ensure comprehensiveness and a reflexive analysis of the data [41]. Moreover, we put great emphasis on fair dealing in the presentation of the results to ensure a wide range of interviewees and their viewpoints would be represented [41] and quoted.”

We have also added a new reference on validity in qualitative research: Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2.

5. The biggest disappointment was that the characteristics of the experts were highly skewed to male from high income countries. This could have been prevented early on during recruitment as there are actually enough experts from low and middle- income countries, with richer insights from the ground. In view of this limitation, I would suggest to at least present a matrix which allows examination whether there are variations of themes between experts from High Income vs Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

We fully agree that unequal representation is a major limitation of our study; it is something we should have considered much more strongly from the beginning, and something we will make sure to account for in any future studies. In terms of the gender skewedness, we had contacted seven additional women who declined participation (in addition to three men), which we have now added to p. 7, line 146. Moreover, given that our participants were experts working in leadership positions, we wonder whether the unequal representation of gender at least partly reflects the unequal representation in global health leadership and therefore our sampling space. We found at the time of data collection (2018) that the committees we approached for sampling were unbalanced in terms of country and gender representation, an issue that we are now glad to see is improving.

We appreciate the suggestion of including a matrix. Early in our analysis we realized that our sample did not equally represent males versus females, and settings with different income levels. We therefore paid careful attention to examining different themes for representation from countries with different income categories. However, we did not find a clear pattern of themes between low- and middle-income country versus high-income country, or male versus female respondents in this examination. Instead, opinions seemed to be located across settings, which makes including a matrix less useful or, we fear, even counterproductive for the presentation of our findings (quantifying results instead of presenting ideas qualitatively).

We had elaborated on the above issues accordingly in the limitations section and have expanded our elaboration on p. 23-24 (lines 518-532): “The transferability of the findings of this study may still be limited given that only a minority of the interviewees were from low- and middle-income countries (38% of the interviewees). Nevertheless, all had working experience in low-and middle-income countries. Seven of the interviews with experts from low- and middle-income countries were conducted with experts from Nepal. Though all of them have different affiliations, their perspectives may be overrepresented. The results may furthermore be limited as an even smaller minority were women (18% of the interviewees). The gender bias reflects the lack of gender parity in leadership positions in the field of global health [62]. At the time of the data collection in 2018 there may have been a lack of equal representation in terms of gender and country income level in high-level committees and working groups, and some of these committees formed our sampling base. Recognizing this lack of balance in recruitment we paid careful attention to patterns in the findings in terms of country income level or gender and highlighted the affiliations of interviewees quoted. We did not find systematic differences in perceptions according to country classification or gender. Where differences were noted we included these in the results”

Reviewer 2: Sonali Sarkar

6. Data has not been shared citing ethical issues. However, anonymised data, removing the remarks that could have pointed to the participants' identity, could have been shared. All participants are well-known in the field and easily identifiable.

Given that all participants of this study are high-level experts working in leadership positions, they are very well-known in the field of tuberculosis and active case-finding. It may be possible to identify them not only be references they make to organizations they work with or countries they work in, but by the way the express themselves. When signing the consent form, we promised all interviewees absolute confidentiality and anonymity, which may be compromised by making transcripts available.

7. Aim of the study is not very clear. Whether the aim is to understand the perceptions of the international experts regarding ACF and how they influence policy or as claimed the first step in exploring the actual benefits and harms of ACF. If the attempt is to find the benefits as well as the harms of ACF, the participants should have been chosen from a wider range of stakeholders. All participants in this study were involved in ACF policy development and implementation. Therefore, their opinions are likely to be influenced by their professional responsibilities.

We have revised the text accordingly to clearly state the aim on p. 6 (lines 122-124): “The aim of the study was to explore experts’ perceptions of the potential benefits and harms of ACF. The study focuses on the perceptions of international ACF experts as informants.”

We agree that exploring the actual benefits and harms of ACF would require further studies and should involve a wide range of participants.

With regards to interviewees’ professional responsibilities influencing their opinions, this is indeed likely. However, we do not perceive this as negative, as long as the interviewees expressed their opinions and not the opinions of their institutions. To ensure the latter, we highlighted to interviewees that we were interested in their personal views and often emphasized this while conducting the interviewees through prompts such as: “in your opinion…”, “what do you think…” or “what is your most important lesson learned”.

8. The impact of ACF depends a lot on the context. Stigma, discrimination and the ability of the health systems to support activities like ACF may be country specific. Therefore, it would have been better if the experts were asked to opine on the benefits and harms of ACF done in specific settings rather than in general.

We absolutely agree that the benefits and harms of ACF are context dependent. By interviewing experts, we hoped to map a broad range of benefits and harms, illuminating them from a global perspective. Meanwhile we hope that future studies will dig deeper into the benefits and harms of ACF in specific contexts.

We had highlighted the need for these important questions to be addressed under Future Research on p. 22-23 (lines 499-510): “Research is needed to understand how perceptions on benefits and harms influence ACF policy development and implementation, how these perceptions differ between settings, and to better quantify the benefits and harms of ACF. This quantification will require a standardization of measurements of the benefits and harms, which could complement existing frameworks for balancing the benefits, harms, costs, values and preferences to support decision-makers, such as the Evidence to Decision frameworks [60]. In addition, high quality evidence is needed on the benefits and harms of ACF for the health system, including the cost of screening and alternative costs, eg of possible de-prioritization of passive case-finding or overall health system strengthening. Research should also explore the perspectives of health care workers and TB patients, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and evaluate whether or how ACF contributes to raising awareness about TB and decreasing TB-related stigma.”

9. In the figure, - 'false positive' is shown as the harm coming from diagnosis. False positives are results of the screening tests which are not basis for initiation of treatment. Confirmed diagnosis is done as per the diagnostic algorithms followed in the National TB programmes of the countries after referral reporting. After diagnosis, all positives are supposed to be true positives; instead of writing 'unintended negative consequences', which is non-specific, it is better to write the specific codes that emerged from the interviews. Figures should be self-explanatory.

We have revised the figure accordingly by clarifying that the screening test as well as the diagnostic test may be false-positive. We have also specified examples of what we mean with “unintended consequences”, i.e. radiation exposure, drug resistance and deportation.

10. In response to the point asking whether the transcripts were returned to the participants for comments or corrections in the COREQ checklist, it is mentioned as page no.7. However, in the manuscript, it is stated that all participants were invited to the conference where the findings were presented, but only few attended. The transcripts should have been shared with all participants for validation.

We have now added an explicit sentence on p. 9 (lines 178-181) and corrected the page number accordingly in the COREQ checklist: ”We offered all participants the opportunity to view their transcripts for comments or correction, however, only three participants requested to see the transcripts. No comments or corrections were made by those who chose to view the transcripts.”

11. Overall, the paper is a novel attempt to throw light on the unintended harms that may occur with ACF, but what is lacking is the context, which would determine both the benefits and harm.

As mentioned under comment 8, we fully agree that the benefits and harms of ACF are context dependent, while we hoped to map a broad range of benefits and harms, illuminating them from a global perspective. We hope that future studies will explore the benefits and harms of ACF in specific contexts.

Reviewer 3: Salome Charalambous

12. ACF-related harms are clearly articulated and seem well thought through however I am not sure that the theme around inappropriate implementation being the cause is substantiated enough in the text. It seems that even if done well, there are still significant challenges and harms that can be caused.

To clarify that even if done well, there could still be significant challenges and harms related to ACF, we have revised the text accordingly on p. 15 (lines 322-325): “The interviewees described how ACF-related harms were often caused by inappropriate implementation, which is not to say that well-implemented ACF would automatically neutralize all possible harms.”

In the text, we had given examples of inappropriate implementation and linked those to the harms that we described. Examples of possible ways of inappropriately implementing ACF include that ACF “may be ‘set up as a parallel system’” (line 326), that it may be implemented despite “insufficient diagnostic and treatment capacity” (line 329), that it may “overburden a health system and divert resources away from other health services” (line 334) or that it could be implemented without safeguarding people’s confidentiality (line 336).

13. The discussion is done very nicely where the expert impressions are substantiated with literature from the field. Discussion is a bit long – may consider reducing it a bit.

We have slightly shortened the discussion section as suggested. We have taken out the following phrase as it was redundant to considerations we already had included under Future Research: “This highlights the need for further research in this area to document and quantify the potential harms of ACF for TB, to determine if perceptions of harm are justified and to allow an evaluation of the benefits against the harms in different contexts.” (p. 19, lines 413-416)

14. Abstract – First sentence in the results is far too long and difficult to follow – please consider splitting it into shorter sentences.

We have revised the first sentence accordingly, breaking it up into two: “Findings elaborated perceived benefits of ACF, including reaching vulnerable populations, reducing patient costs, helping raise awareness for tuberculosis among individuals and engaging communities, and reducing tuberculosis transmission. Perceived harms included increasing stigma and discrimination, causing false-positive diagnoses, as well as triggering other unintended consequences related to screening for tuberculosis patients, such as deportation of migrants once confirmed to have tuberculosis.”

15. Introduction, Line 83: “It” should be replaced with “ACF” to be clearer

We have amended the sentence accordingly.

16. Introduction, Line 84: remove “help”

We have removed “help” as proposed.

17. Introduction, Line 85-86: make this clearer by splitting the sentence?

We have split this sentence as suggested on p. 4-5 (lines 83-86): “ACF aims primarily at improving early detection and treatment of TB. ACF can also identify people who are eligible for treatment of latent TB infection by ruling out active disease and people at high risk of developing TB. Moreover, ACF can help map out risk factors and socio-economic determinants that need to be addressed to prevent TB in a given population [15].”

18. Introduction , Lines 89-91: please rephrase as sentence is vague and unclear

We have rephrased the sentence as follows on p. 5 (lines 89-91): “Pre-conditions for implementing ACF are complex [11, 16-17] and include, for example, high-quality TB diagnosis, treatment, care, management and support for patients [11].”

19. Introduction, Line 96: missing word “the”

We have corrected the sentence accordingly.

20. Introduction, Line 98 – 105: the introduction does not clearly state how this study is different to what is already reported in the literature. Are these findings from patients or community members? Would be good to differentiate from this study to show how this study adds value.

On p. 5 (lines 102-104), we have highlighted our study’s added value: “While many articles reflect on the benefits and harms of ACF based on the perspectives of patients [18-19, 22-24] and the community [20, 21], this article considers the experts’ perceptions.”

21. Introduction, Line 109: split into two words “laypeople”

Have made the correction as suggested.

22. Table 1 – I wonder if it is not possible to streamline the organisations a bit – not sure International institution and international society or non-profit organisation for instance are different types of institutions.

We have streamlined the table by merging non-governmental organizations and non-profit organizations. Moreover, we have clarified what is meant with “international societies” on p. 7 (lines 148-149): “international societies (such as the International Society of Travel Medicine, but in the TB field)”.

23. Table 2 – start on a new page

After making our revisions, Table 2 was not divided onto two pages anymore.

24. Methods, Page 10 Line 187: word missing before “conferences’’

We have corrected the sentence as pointed out.

25. Results, Page 10, Line 200: include “as benefits’’ after “included’’

We have revised the sentence accordingly.

26. Discussion, Page 18, Line 378: perceived is repeated twice in the sentence

We have re-written the sentence as follows on p. 19 (lines 400-401): “…while most of the perceived harms were said to be caused by inappropriate implementation of ACF (theme 2).”

27. Discussion, Line 395: “and” is missing

We have added this as suggested.

28. Discussion, Line 397 – 399: rather emphasise the mortality reduction case detection by placing that at the end of the sentence.

We have rephrased the sentence as follows on p. 19 (lines 419-422): “The trial showed an increase of case detection as a result of repeated household visits, symptom screening, physical examination and chest radiography, and found reductions in all-cause mortality [47].”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (80.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Sonali Sarkar

30 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-20600R1

‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities – a qualitative study based on expert interviews

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Biermann,

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.

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

Thank you for responding to the comments of the reviewers. The manuscript has been revised as per the suggestions from the reviewers. However, some errors in citing of references need correction, for example,

1. 'The methods have previously been described in detail in a study that was based on information from the same interviews' has been cited as ref. no 36, which should be ref no. 37.

2. 'Country income level based on the World Bank’s classification' cited as 36, should be 38.

Another clarification sought is regarding the questions asked to the participants of this study. Was there any reason for asking about the benefits to the individual and risks at the community level? Both the benefits and risks mentioned in the results pertain to the individual as well as the community level.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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,

Sonali Sarkar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0247568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247568.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

7 Jan 2021

Point-by-point reviewers’ comments and authors’ answers

Title of the manuscript: “‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities – a qualitative study based on expert interviews”

Reviewer comment: 'The methods have previously been described in detail in a study that was based on information from the same interviews' has been cited as ref. no 36, which should be ref no. 37. 'Country income level based on the World Bank’s classification' cited as 36, should be 38.

Authors’ answer: Thank you very much. We have corrected the referencing as indicated. In addition, we have double-checked all references for their correctness and updated/added three references:

1. WHO. Global TB Report 2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

The WHO Global TB Report that we originally included was from 2019. We have now cited the latest Report from 2020. Based on the new Report, we updated the estimated gap between incident and notified TB cases in the world to “2.9 million people in 2020” (instead of 3 million) (p. 4, lines 64-65) and “19% and 83% of TB patients face catastrophic costs” (instead of 27% and 83%) (p. 20, line 422).

2. WHO. Rapid communication on systematic screening for tuberculosis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

As WHO is in the process of revising their guidelines on systematic screening, the Organization published a rapid communication that was relevant to include. We added the reference (number 18) here: “In this regard, the WHO guidelines for systematic screening contain recommendations for screening specific risk groups for TB [11, 18].”

3. Marks GB, Nguyen NV, Nguyen PTB, Nguyen TA, Nguyen HB, Tran KH, et al. Community-wide Screening for Tuberculosis in a High-Prevalence Setting. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(14):1347-1357.

The trial by Marks et al (2019) is a key reference showing benefits of ACF at the community level. We have now ensured mentioning this reference in the introduction, along another key reference (Fox et al 2018) which we had only mentioned in the discussion section: “At the community level, ACF may lead to reductions in mortality [26], transmission and prevalence of TB [27].” (p. 5, lines 100-101).

Moreover, we have made slight revisions to the discussion section to reference not only the study by Fox et al, but also by Marks et al: “One trial showed an increase of case detection as a result of inviting household contacts to attend a clinic for symptom screening, physical examination and chest radiography, and found reductions in all-cause mortality [26]. The other trial evaluated the effectiveness of community-wide screening compared to passive case-finding and demonstrated reduced prevalence of TB [27].”

Reviewer comment: Another clarification sought is regarding the questions asked to the participants of this study. Was there any reason for asking about the benefits to the individual and risks at the community level? Both the benefits and risks mentioned in the results pertain to the individual as well as the community level.

Authors’ answer: Thank you for this observation. We would like to clarify that we did ask about both the benefits and the risks at the individual and community level. We realized that the example questions we had included in the text were misleading. We have therefore rephrased the text as follows: “For example, we asked about the perceived benefits and risks of ACF for the individual, the community, the health system and compared to other interventions for early case detection (S2 File) (instead of: “What are the benefits of ACF in your view, at the level of the individual?”, “What are the risks of ACF from your opinion, at the level of communities?””) (p. 8, lines 168-172)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (70.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Sonali Sarkar

10 Feb 2021

‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities – a qualitative study based on expert interviews

PONE-D-20-20600R2

Dear Dr. Biermann,

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.

Modifications have been done adequately. The manuscript is ready for publication. A minor language correction needed in lines 214-215 that was missed out, can be edited.

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,

Sonali Sarkar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Sonali Sarkar

23 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-20600R2

‘A double-edged sword’: Perceived benefits and harms of active case-finding for people with presumptive tuberculosis and communities – a qualitative study based on expert interviews

Dear Dr. Biermann:

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. Sonali Sarkar

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. COREQ checklist.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (423.9KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (37.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (80.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (70.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly as they are highly sensitive. In view of this, as part of the consent process prior to their participation in the study, we specified that confidentiality and anonymity would be strictly maintained and that only the participating authors would have access to the data collected. With these assurances, ethical clearance was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority in Stockholm (2017/2281-31/2). For questions regarding data requests, please contact: maike.winters@ki.se.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES