Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jun 11;16(6):e0253177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253177

Prevalence of active tuberculosis disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings of the Amhara region, Ethiopia

Melashu Balew Shiferaw 1,*, Mulusew Alemneh Sinishaw 2, Desalegne Amare 3, Genetu Alem 4, Dawit Asefa 5, Eveline Klinkenberg 6,7
Editor: Frederick Quinn8
PMCID: PMC8195404  PMID: 34115821

Abstract

Background

Health care workers (HCWs) are at an increased risk of acquiring tuberculosis (TB) compared to the general population, because of the frequent face to face contact or potential exposure to TB through shared air or space with infectious patient(s), regardless of economic setting and local TB incidence. Information on the burden of active TB disease among HCWs will help guide control measures, can be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of TB infection prevention programs in the health care setting, and guide necessary actions. However, data on TB among HCW in Ethiopia is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the prevalence of active TB disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings in the Amhara region of Ethiopia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study design was used to recruit a total of 580 randomly selected study participants in the Amhara region. Data were collected over four months in selected hospitals and health centers. Implementation of TB prevention and control measures was evaluated using a standardized checklist. The main outcome indicator was active TB as measured by a laboratory diagnosis using GeneXpert technology.

Results

A total of 580 study participants were enrolled. The mean age was 31.3 (±7.8 standard deviation) years, with about two-thirds (65.3%) aged between 18–24 years. A total of 9 (1.6%) MTB cases were detected, 4 (1.4%) in HCWs and 5 (1.7%) in support staff, which did not significantly differ (P = 0.50). About 90% of the participants had not received TB infection prevention and control training ever. More than half (54%) of the study participants worked in poorly ventilated rooms. Triage of coughing patients was not practiced in 32% of the studied facilities (health centers and hospitals).

Conclusions

The magnitude of TB among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings was higher than in the general population (140 per 100000 population). The status of implementation of tuberculosis prevention and control measures indicated missed opportunities. Hence, strict implementation of developed infection control plans of TB in healthcare settings needs to be improved.

Background

Tuberculosis (TB) is an infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis that most often affects the lungs [1]. Transmission of TB and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB)/ extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) typically is more intense in congregates settings like in health facilities, laboratories, prisons, military camps, and others [2]. Health care workers (HCWs) are at an increased risk of acquiring TB compared to the general population, because of the frequent face to face contact or potential exposure to TB through shared air or space with infectious patient(s), regardless of economic setting and local TB incidence [3]. A systematic review of TB incidence in low- and middle-income countries estimated the annual risk of TB infection in HCWs to range from 3.9% to 14.3% [4] with HCWs having 1.9 to 5.7 times more risk of developing active TB depending on the country setting and the level of infection control measures in healthcare facilities [5].

Health care workers are also at greater risk for MDR-TB than the general population and are up to six times more likely to be hospitalized for MDR-TB [6]. With the global increasing incidence of MDR-TB and XDR-TB, the problem has been further compounded, with the risk of HCWs contracting more severe forms of the disease, which are difficult or sometimes impossible to treat successfully [7, 8].

Despite the higher risk, HCWs may be less likely to seek medical care leading to under-reporting of the true TB disease incidence [5]. Reported reasons for this are less attention is given by policymakers to health care workers TB status, negligence of healthcare workers in the adaptation of the TB working environment due to shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of supervision, and fear of stigma and discrimination [9]. Delayed care seeking results in delayed diagnosis, risking less effective treatment for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB), while longer contact with patients increases the risk of ongoing transmission to HCWs [6, 10, 11]. In Ethiopia, data about TB disease in HCWs is limited. Knowing the prevalence of active TB among HCWs in the Ethiopian setting would help to determine the effectiveness of the TB infection prevention program and guide further control measures.

The WHO End TB Strategy, approved by the World Health Assembly in 2014, calls for a 95% reduction in TB deaths and 90% reduction in the TB incidence rate by 2035, compared to 2015 [12]. Infection prevention is a cost-effective method of reducing TB transmission. Implementing effective TB infection prevention and control measures can be accomplished in manageable steps and will contribute to the overall protection of the health workforce, the community and vulnerable populations, from air born transmissions. Besides the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), regular screening of HCWs for TB and other infections like HIV is part of the routinely recommended package of preventive control measures for health care settings that could help reduce transmission together with effectively triaging people with TB symptoms upon arrival at the health facility, promoting good cough etiquette, diagnosing people with TB symptoms early and starting treatment without delay as well as adequate ventilation of the consulting and waiting rooms [13, 14]. Some studies conducted in Ethiopia revealed that practices of TB infection prevention and control measures were below the standard [1517]. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the implementation of TB infection prevention and control measures in addition to estimating the prevalence of TB in health care workers.

Methods

Study design and study area

A cross sectional study was conducted to determine the prevalence of active TB disease among healthcare workers in Amhara region. The study was carried out from October 01, 2018 to January 30, 2019. Amhara regional state is one the largest Federal States of Ethiopia and has 841 health centers and 67 hospitals that provide TB services. The region has 24 GeneXpert sites and a total of 150 so-called District Sample Collection Centers (DSCCs) that collect sputum specimens of presumptive MDR-TB patients from remote health facilities for testing at the two regional laboratories and one TB culture laboratory assigned to diagnose drug resistance TB. Nine treatment initiating centers (TIC) are providing treatment for MDR TB patients. There are also 115 treatment follow up centers (TFCs). In the 2009 Ethiopian fiscal year (08 July 2016 to 07 July 2017), the Amhara region reported 23,345 TB cases (all forms) and 4896 (21%) bacteriology confirmed TB cases. The prevalence of TB and HIV co-infection in the region was 7.3% (1625/22,206) in the same period. The Amhara region had a reported 29,801 health care workers (13,440 males and 16,361 females) in the 2009 Ethiopian fiscal year in addition to 14,296 administrative and support staff working in the health care setting [18].

Study population

All healthcare workers and support staff recruited under the Amhara Regional State Health Bureau health facilities were our study population.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Health care workers who worked in the Amhara region health facilities departments were included in the study. Both clinical, and administrative and support staff were included to assess the burden of TB among different groups. Since all facilities provided TB service, there was no exclusion of facilities in the sampling frame.

Sampling

The sample size for this study was determined using single population proportion formula assuming a potential 9.0% TB prevalence among health care workers based on data from South Africa [10] taking into consideration similar practice and exposure for TB for health care workers with Ethiopia, and assuming a 95% confidence interval, 5% marginal error and a design effect of 2. With these assumptions the total sample size was 252.

By adding 15% contingency for non-response, the target sample size for each group (health care workers and support staff) was set at 290, assuming both to have a similar burden. Thus, the total target sample size for the study was 580 participants to be screened for TB. Support staff included cleaners, cashiers, data clerks, case managers who are assigned to help patients in guiding and facilitating the diagnosis and treatment in health facilities, card room workers, security guards and health facility assigned treatment supporters who are assigned to follow treatment adherence of patients using different communication mechanisms such as phone call).

Multi stage cluster sampling was used in order to select the participants for each of the two target groups. Stage 1, consisted of randomly selecting five zones out of the total of 13 administrative zones in Amhara region. At stage 2, we proportionally selected a number of HFs for each zone based on the total number of HFs in each zone. The average number of health facilities (HFs) in each selected zone was 52 in Awi, 12 in Bahir Dar, 102 in South Gondar, 109 in East Gojjam, and 70 in North Wollo. Even if the national recommendation determining 12 sites sampled are sufficient at regional level, we included a total of 38 sampled HFs to make the study more representative. Finally, at each site 8 HCWs and 8 support staffs were included, resulting in a total of 38 x 8 = 304 targeted staff per group. Selection of staff at each site was done using the type of health facilities and the type of services they provide. Participants at each selected health facility were included using systematic random sampling by getting the list of health care workers and support staff from the human resource department. Then, each selected staff was invited to participate in the study. When they had not have been assigned to work the day of the visit, an appointment was set to conduct the procedures another day.

Data collection procedure and laboratory analysis

Trained supervisors and data collectors were recruited to conduct the data collection. Data were collected using five teams, each composed of two data collectors (one laboratory technician and one clinician) and a supervisor. They were recruited for the project and assigned to collect the data from recruited participants (HCWs and support staff) in the sampled health facilities.

A questionnaire was used to collect socio-demographic data and TB exposure to known TB patients for each participant. The status of TB infection prevention and control measures was assessed in each health facility and details about the use of PPE were inquired about in the questionnaire. The ventilation status of the room that the staff usually worked in was assessed by the data collectors during interviewing of the study participants. The room was evaluated and considered ventilated if a room had open window and cross. Others who did not have room to work in like security guards were not evaluated. All study participants were evaluated for TB symptoms by trained professional nurses/health officers. Based on the Ethiopian national TB screening algorithm, those who had no symptoms suggestive for active TB were considered TB screen negative and not to have TB. Participants who reported a cough of 2 weeks or more, or presence of fever, weight loss or night sweats with any duration were considered TB symptomatic. All symptomatic participants were asked to provide one sputum sample (on the spot). All sputum samples were processed by trained laboratory personnel at GeneXpert sites using the GeneXpert technology (Xpert ®MTB/RIF) for the diagnosis of TB. If the facility itself did not have a machine, collected specimens were transported at 2–8 0C to the nearest diagnostic sites using triple packaging within three days of sputum collection in order to minimize transportation frequency and cost.

Data management, analysis and quality assurance

During data collection, questionnaires were checked daily for accuracy, completeness, and consistency by the supervisors. Epi-info version 7.2.2 Software was used for data entry and SPSS version 20 statistical package for the data analysis. Frequencies and cross tabulations were used to describe study participants. The main outcome was presence of active TB (MTB detected/ Rif resistant or susceptible) within the group investigated.

To enhance data quality a structured questionnaire was used. Two days training was given for the data collectors on the data collection tools and field work methods. The investigators strictly followed and made on site supervision during the whole period of data collection. Laboratory diagnosis was done by trained laboratory personnel and the testing was done at diagnostic sites. Invalid/error results were repeated. To ensure data quality and avoid transcription errors, double data entry was done for all the questionnaires. Each laboratory result recorded was cross checked with the GeneXpert machine during data entry.

Ethical consideration

This study was reviewed and approved by the Amhara Public Health Institute Ethical Review Board. Support letters were obtained from the Amhara regional health bureau, zonal health departments, Woreda health offices and health facilities. Written informed consent was obtained from each study participant and participation was voluntary. Only code number was used to ensure confidentiality. Result of TB diagnosis was communicated only in a private and secured manner. All the diagnosed TB cases were linked to care.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of study participants

A total of 580 study subjects, 290 HCWs and 290 support staff, were enrolled from 38 health facilities in this survey. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 31.3 (±7.8) years, with two thirds (379[65.3%]) being between 18–24 years. The male/female ratio differed significantly between the two groups, with 112 [38.6%]) of the HCW workers being female, and 190 (65.5%) of the support staff being female (P<0.001). Among the HCW, most of the participants were nurses (21.0%) with the rest being composed of laboratory staff (8.6%), pharmacy staff (5.9%), public health officers (4.8%), radiographers (4.1%), and physicians (3.6%) in profession. A total of 179 (61.7%) support staff and 135 (46.6%) HCWs had work experience shorter than five years (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics study participants, Amhara region.

Characteristics Category Participants
Support staff HCWs Total
Sex Male 100(34.5) 178(61.4) 278(47.9)
Female 190(65.5) 112(38.6) 302(52.1)
Age in years 18–24 42(14.5) 26(9.0) 68(11.7)
25–34 168(57.9) 211(72.8) 379(65.4)
35–44 49(16.9) 34(11.7) 83(14.3)
>44 31(10.7) 19(6.5) 50(8.6)
Mean(±SD) 32.0(±8.8) 30.7(±6.5) 31.3 (±7.8)
Job title Cleaner 58(20.0) - 58(10.0)
Data clerk 51(17.6) - 51(8.8)
Casher 42(14.5) - 42(7.2)
Security guard 34(11.7) - 34(5.9)
Porter 30(10.3) - 30(5.2)
Case manager 26(9.0) - 26(4.5)
Treatment supporter 18(6.2) - 18(3.1)
Card room 17(5.9) - 17(2.9)
Receptionist 14(4.8) - 14(2.4)
Nurse - 122(42.1) 122(21.0)
Laboratory staff - 50(17.2) 50(8.6)
Pharmacy staff - 34(11.7) 34(5.9)
Public health officer - 28(9.7) 28(4.8)
Radiographers - 24(8.3) 24(4.2)
Physician - 21(7.2) 21(3.6)
Midwife - 11(3.8) 11(1.9)
Work experience <5 years 179(61.7) 135(46.6) 314(54.2)
5–10 years 72(24.8) 112(38.6) 184(31.7)
>10 years 39(13.5) 43(14.8) 82(14.1)

Case manager: support staff assigned to help patients in guiding and facilitating the diagnosis and treatment in health facilities; Treatment supporter: support staff assigned to follow treatment adherence of patients using different communication mechanisms such as phone call; HCWs: healthcare workers.

TB exposure status and practice of infection prevention and control measures

Of the HCW, 28% had experience of working in the TB clinic. The majority of the HCWs (82.8%) and support staff (89.3%) reported not having a BCG vaccination. None of the study participants were screened for TB as part of entry screening when they started working in the health facility. A total of 538 (92.8%) of all participants indicated they were not annually screened for TB as part of the facility TB infection prevention screening program, this did not differ by group (P = 0.423). The majority of the HCWs (237 [81.7%]) and support staff (284 [97.9%]) were not trained on TB infection control. Three quarter (75.0%) of HCWs reported having had direct contact with TB patients during their work in the health facility during the previous year. Moreover, 147 (50.7%) HCWs and 60 (65.9%) support staff worked in poorly ventilated rooms. In this study, 32 (11.0%) support staff and 1 (0.3%) HCW reported having ever taken isoniazid TB preventive therapy (Table 2). The majority of the healthcare workers, 456 (78.7%), did not have nor use N95 respirators as a personal protection measure. Of the 124 participants who had N95 respirator access, 82 (66.1%) did not use the respirator at work. Only 26.3% (10/38) of the health facilities had a TB IC plan. Of which, 70% (7/10) indicated they did not audit their plan annually as recommended.

Table 2. TB exposure status of study participants in Amhara region.

Characteristics Category Participants
Support staff HCWs Total P value
Has experience of TB patient care in TB clinic No NA 210(72.4) 210(72.4) -
Yes NA 80(27.6) 80(27.6) -
BCG vaccinated No 259(89.3) 240(82.8) 499(86.0) 0.023
Yes 31(10.7) 50(17.2) 81(14.0)
Trained on TB infection control No 284(97.9) 237(81.7) 521(89.8) 0.0001
Yes 6(2.1) 53(18.3) 59(10.2)
Screened for TB as part of a facility screening program No 266(91.7) 272(93.8) 538(92.8) 0.423
Yes 24(8.3) 18(6.2) 42(7.2)
Has worked on triaging for coughing patients No 278(95.9) 140(48.3) 418(72.1) -
Yes 12(4.1) 150(51.7) 162(27.9)
Having direct contact with TB patients in the last year Yes, own house 7(2.4) 6(2.1) 13(2.2) -
Yes, in the health facility 174(60.0) 219(75.5) 393(67.8)
Yes, outside household 0(0.0) 2(0.7) 2(0.3)
No 91(31.4) 58(20.0) 149(25.7)
Do not know 18(6.2) 5(1.7) 23(4.0)
Ever use medication such as isoniazid to prevent TB Yes 32(11.0) 1(0.3) 33(5.7) -
No 258 (88. 9) 289(99.7) 547(94.3)
Ventilation status of the room as observed by data collectors Not well ventilated 60(65.9) 147(50.7) 207(54.3) 0.011
Well ventilated 31(34.1) 143(49.3) 174(45.7)
Room cleanness as observed by data collectors Yes 165(72.1) 268 (82.4) 433(83. 5) -
No 64(27.9) 22(7.6) 86(16.6)

NA: not applicable

TB screening and disease status

A total of 103 (17.8%) participants, 46 (15.9%) HCWs and 57 (19.7%) support staff, were identified as presumptive TB based on reported symptoms. Cough of two weeks or more was reported by 40 (13.8) HCWs and 37 (12.8) support staff. Weight loss, night sweats and fever were reported by 42 (7.2%), 23 (4.0%) and 35 (6.0%) of participants, respectively. Active tuberculosis was found in 9 (1.6%) participants: 4 (1.4%) HCWs and 5 (1.7%) support staff, and there was no difference between these groups (P value: 0.50). Out of the 9, five reported to be currently on the intensive phase of TB treatment for bacteriological confirmed TB. Forty (6.9%) participants reported a previous history of TB disease, and only one of those diagnosed with TB in the study reported a previous episode of TB (Tables 3 and 4). The identified cases belonged to the following cadres of staff, two case managers who were support staff assigned to help patients in guiding and facilitating the diagnosis and treatment in the health facilities, one cleaner, one cashier, two pharmacists, one physician, one laboratory technologist and one security guard. None of the identified cases had drug resistant TB.

Table 3. TB diseases status and symptoms in Amhara region.

Characteristics Category Participants
Support staff HCWs Total
Active TB Negative 285(98.3) 286(98.6) 571(98.4)
Positive/sensitive 5(1.7) 4(1.4) 9(1.6)
Positive /resistance 0 0 0
Ever have TB diseases Yes currently on treatment 3(1.0) 2(0.7) 5(0.9)
Yes previous 30(10.3) 10(3.4) 40(6.9)
No 245(84.5) 276(95.2) 521(89.8)
Do not know 12(4.1) 2(0.7) 14(2.4)
TB screenin Positive 57(19.7) 46(15.9) 103(17.8)
Negative 233(80.3) 244(84.1) 477(82.2)
Cough No 253(87.2) 250(86.2) 503(86.7)
Yes 37(12.8) 40(13.8) 77(13.3)
Cough of two weeks or more No 263(90.7) 262(90.3) 525(90.5)
Yes 27(9.3) 28(9.7) 55(9.5)
Weight loss No 266(91.7) 272(93.8) 538(92.8)
Yes 24(8.3) 18(6.2) 42(7.2)
Night sweats No 274(94.5) 283(97.6) 557(96.0)
Yes 16(5.5) 7(2.4) 23(4.0)
Fever No 269(92.8) 276(95.2) 545(94.0)
Yes 21(7.2) 14(4.8) 35(6.0)

Table 4. TB detected cases and associated factors in Amhara region.

Variables Category Active TB status OR P value
Negative Positive
Gender Male 273 5 1.36(0.36–5.13) 0.744
Female 298 4 1
Age 18–24 68 0 ND
25–34 372 7 ND 0.480
35–44 81 2 ND
>44 50 0 ND
Total years of experience <5 years 309 5 1.31 (0.15–11.38) 0.966
5–10 years 181 3 1.34(0.14–13.10)
>10 years 81 1 1
Trained on TB infection control No 512 9 - 0.609
Yes 59 0 ND
BCG vaccinated No 493 6 0.32(0.08–1.29) 0.118
Yes 78 3 1
Worked on triaging for coughing patients No 411 7 1 1.000
Yes 160 2 0.73 (0.15–3.57)
Had direct contact with known TB patients Yes, in the health facility 385 8 3.55 (0.44–28.63) 0.387
Yes, out of health facility 15 0 -
No 171 1 1

ND: not determined

Discussion

In this study, 1.4% of HCWs and 1.7% of support staff in selected facilities in the Amhara region, Ethiopia had active tuberculosis. The selected facilities were representative for the region. Implementation of IC measures was low though numbers included in the study were limited. The observed prevalence (1.6% ~ 1600 per 100,000 population), though based on a small sample is significantly higher than the national TB prevalence for the general population, estimated at 140 per 100,000 populations [19]. A recent study conducted in Zambia showed at least 0.5% of HCWs screened had TB during the screening appointment [20], which is lower compared to our findings. The higher prevalence of TB in HCWs and support staff suggests an occupational hazard, possible linked to poor status of TB prevention and control measures in healthcare settings including our setting. This needs an effective implementation of TB infection control (TBIC) to reduce the TB burden, ongoing transmission and their consequences in health facilities [20, 21]. Our finding is lower than a study in Kenya that reported 3.0% prevalence of active TB among healthcare workers [22]. This difference might be due to differences in inclusion criteria as the Kenyan study only included symptomatic cases diagnosed by microscopy and reviewed retrospectively from the laboratory register.

Routine TB screening for all staff working in health care facilities is important to identify TB cases timely. Our data indicated that over 90% of the study participants were not regularly screened for TB. However, the national TB guideline recommend all healthcare settings to conduct TB screening for all staff before entry into the facility as frequent rotation of staff which would pose more transmission risk so screening is extra important, and encourages periodic TB screening in facilities [23].

Triage of people with TB signs and symptoms, or with TB disease, is recommended to reduce M. tuberculosis transmission to health workers, persons attending health care facilities or other persons in settings with a high risk of transmission [23, 24]. The effective implementation of triage goes beyond the minimal infrastructure requirements. It should also include fast tracking of patients with presumed TB, rapid diagnosis, and respiratory separation, use of data-recording tools for documentation [24]. The findings from this study indicate that triaging was not implemented by 32% of the health facilities. Similarly, a study from South Africa documented that approximately half of the primary healthcare workers did not always triage patients with presumptive TB [25]. Knowledge gaps could be an underlying reason as close to 90% of the participants did not receive TB infection prevention training, and 74% of the studied health facilities did not have a TB prevention plan in place. Training of all staff is the facility management responsibility according to the Ethiopian TB guidelines [23]. Similarly, inadequate training was reported in Mozambique, in China and in South Africa [2628]. This could contribute to poor implementation and practice of the tuberculosis prevention and control programs in the setting. In addition, for the quarter of health facilities that did have an IC plan; 70% of them did not audit their plan annually. However, monitoring of implementation, annual audit and timely feedback of health care practices should be performed to prevent and control TB transmission at the health care facility level as per the WHO 2019 TB guideline [24].

In this study, about 54% of the participants were working in poorly ventilated rooms. As part of the IC plan, facilities should assess the direction of airflow to reduce M. tuberculosis transmission to health workers, persons attending health care facilities or other persons in settings with a high risk of transmission [24, 29]. Tuberculosis prevalence among HCWs is associated with administrative control, environmental control measures, and personal protection [30]. In China, the absence of appropriate ventilation systems increased the risk of TB [31].

Limited availability of protective respirators for health care workers like observed in our study, where nearly 80% did not have adequate PPE, has also been documented in the Dominican Republic, Nepal and Mozambique [26, 32, 33]. Unavailability of protective equipment could further increase the risk of exposure to M. tuberculosis for health workers. Per the national TB guideline, healthcare workers should use respirators at work and infectious TB patients should use masks [23].

This study evaluated the healthcare workers active disease status using laboratory based molecular Xpert ®MTB/RIF method, which is a more sensitive method to detect active TB cases [34] then used in several other studies [3537]. However, this study was not without limitations. Some data were collected by observation like the use of personnel protective equipment and ventilation status of rooms. Therefore, observer bias in the parts in evaluating the practices of prevention and control measures was controlled using the training of data collectors. In this study, we did not use additional investigations like cytology and x-ray for the diagnosis of TB as a high budget for would have been required, however, this means we may have missed some TB cases that were not symptomatic. TB screening was evaluated using self-reported symptoms only in this study although we used the more sensitive molecular Xpert ®MTB/RIF method to confirm TB. Moreover, rotation of staff through different facilities and areas/wards within facilities in terms of risk factors was not taken into account.

Conclusions

The magnitude of active tuberculosis among healthcare workers was higher than in the general population. The limited implementation of infection control activities observed needs to be addressed to ensure proper containment of tuberculosis infection risks in the facilities.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Tuberculosis Research Advisory Committee of the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health for providing the opportunity to conduct this study. The authors also acknowledge the cooperation of study participants, health facility staff and health facility administration to enable us to collect the data.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

MBS received the award. The Global Health Bureau, Office of Infectious Disease, US Agency for International Development, financially supported this study through Challenge TB under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-A-14-00029. This study is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) / Challenge TB project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report, 2016.
  • 2.Sanchez JL, Hiser MJ. Tuberculosis as a force health protection threat to the United States military. Military medicine. 2015. Mar 1; 180 (3):276. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baussano I, Nunn P, Williams B, Pivetta E, Bugiani M, Scano F. Tuberculosis among health care workers. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011; 17 (3):488–95. doi: 10.3201/eid1703.100947 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Joshi R, Reingold AL, Menzies D, Pai M. Tuberculosis among health-care workers in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2006; 3 (12):e494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.WHO. Guide on the Monitoring of TB Disease Incidence Among Health Care Workers, 2013
  • 6.O’Donnell MR, Jarand J, Loveday M, Padayatchi N, Zelnick J, Werner L, et al. High incidence of hospital admissions with multidrug resistant and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis among South African health care workers. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153(8):516–22. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-00008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.CSIS Global Health Policy Center. As Ethiopia Moves toward Tuberculosis Elimination, Success Requires Higher Investment, Washington, D.C., 2016.
  • 8.Jesudas CD and Thangakunam B. Tuberculosis Risk in Health Care Workers. 2013; 55:149–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Stop TB partnership. Key populations brief: Health care workers. Available at: http://stoptb.org/assets/documents/resources/publications/acsm/KPBrief_HealthCareWorker_ENG_WEB.pdf. Accessed date: 26 February 2021
  • 10.Tudor C, Van der Walt M, Margot B, Dorman SE, Pan WK, Yenokyan G, et al. Tuberculosis among health care workers in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a retrospective cohort analysis. BMC Public Health 2014; 14 (1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jarand J, Shean K, O’Donnell M, Loveday M, Kvasnovsky C, Van der Walt M, et al. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) among health care workers in South Africa. Trop Med Int Health 2010; 15 (10):1179–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02590.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.World Health Organization. The end TB strategy. World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Verkuijl S, Middelkoop K. Protecting our front-liners: occupational tuberculosis prevention through infection control strategies. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62 (suppl 3):S231–S7. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ1184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.WHO policy on TB infection controls in health-care facilities, congregate settings and households. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tamir K, Wasie B, Azage M. Tuberculosis infection control practices and associated factors among health care workers in health centers of West Gojjam zone, Northwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16 (a):359. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1608-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gizaw GD, Alemu ZA, Kibret KT. Assessment of knowledge and practice of health workers towards tuberculosis infection control and associated factors in public health facilities of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Arch Public Health. 2015; 73 (1): 15. doi: 10.1186/s13690-015-0062-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tenna A, Stenehjem EA, Margoles L, Kacha E, Blumberg HM, Kempker RR. Infection Control Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among Healthcare Workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013; 34 (12): 1289–1296. doi: 10.1086/673979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Amhara National Regional State Health Bureau. Regional Health Bureau Annual Report, July 2017.
  • 19.World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2019: World Health Organization; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Verver S, Kapata N, Simpungwe MK, Kaminsa S, Mwale M, Mukwangole C, et al. Feasibility of district wide screening of health care workers for tuberculosis in Zambia. BMC public health. 2018. Dec;18(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Buregyeya E, Nuwaha F, Verver S, Criel B, Colebunders R, Wanyenze R, et al. Implementation of tuberculosis infection control in health facilities in Mukono and Wakiso districts, Uganda. BMC infectious diseases. 2013. Dec 1;13(1):360. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kanyina EW, Boru WG, Mucheru GM, Amwayi SA, Galgalo T. Tuberculosis infection among health care workers: a case series in two district hospitals, Kenya, August 2013. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2017; 28: 4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Health. National guidelines for TB, DR-TB and leprosy in Ethiopia, 2018.
  • 24.WHO guidelines on tuberculosis infection prevention and control, 2019 update [PubMed]
  • 25.Engelbrecht M, Rensburg AJ, Kigozi G, Rensburg HCJ. Factors associated with good TB infection control practices among primary healthcare workers in the Free State Province, South Africa. BMC Infectious Diseases 2016; 16:633 doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1984-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Brouwer M, Coelho E, Dores Mosse Cd, Brondi L, Winterton L, et al. Healthcare Workers’ Challenges in the Implementation of Tuberculosis Infection Prevention and Control Measures in Mozambique. PLoS ONE 2014; 9(12): e114364. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lin Y, Harries AD. Tuberculosis infection control measures in diabetes clinics in China: a rapid assessment of 10 hospitals. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2015; 20 (9): 1196–1200. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ayuk JN. Cross-sectional study of tuberculosis among workers in Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Western Cape province, South Africa. 2013 [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ogbonnaya LU, Chukwu JN, Uwakwe KA, Oyibo PG, Ndukwe CD. The status of tuberculosis infection control measures in health care facilities rendering joint TB/HIV services in "German Leprosy and Tuberculosis Relief Association" supported states in Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract 2011; 14: 270–5. doi: 10.4103/1119-3077.86765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hou YY, Xiong YC, He GX, Guo H, Zhao F, Zhang WM, et al. Analysis of the prevalence of tuberculosis disease among health care workers and its associated factors. Chin J Nosocomiology. 2012; 22 (19):4428–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wang X, He T, Geng M, Song Y, Wang J, Liu M, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for tuberculosis among healthcare workers in Chinese tuberculosis facilities. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 2018; 7:26. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0407-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shrestha A, Bhattarai D, Thapa B, Basel P, Wagle RR. Health care workers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices on tuberculosis infection control, Nepal. BMC Infectious Diseases 2017; 17:724 doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2828-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chapman HJ, Veras-Estévez BA, Pomeranz JL, Pérez-Then EN, Marcelino B, Lauzardo M. Perceived Barriers to Adherence to Tuberculosis Infection Control Measures among Health Care Workers in the Dominican Republic. MEDICC Review, 2017; 19: 16–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.The Federal Ministry of Health and the Ethiopian Public Health Institute. Implementation guideline for GeneXpert MTB/RIF Assay in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 2014.
  • 35.Wu Z, Rueda ZV, Li T, Zhang Z, Jiang Y, Sha W, et al. Effect of the Xpert MTB/RIF on the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis cases and rifampicin resistance in Shanghai, China. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2020. Dec;20(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-4871-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Iram S, Zeenat A, Hussain S, Yusuf NW, Aslam M. Rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis using Xpert MTB/RIF assay-Report from a developing country. Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 2015. Jan;31(1):105–110. doi: 10.12669/pjms.311.6970 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Joshi B, Lestari T, Graham SM, Baral SC, Verma SC, Ghimire G, et al. The implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosis of tuberculosis in Nepal: A mixed-methods analysis. PloS one. 2018. Aug 10;13(8):e0201731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frederick Quinn

25 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-03747

The magnitude of active tuberculosis disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings of the Amhara region, Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shiferaw,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript. If you will need significantly more time 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,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: The paper is of interest and well written. The discussion should be implemeented . Limits of the study should be better discussed. Minor spelling check are required. I suggest to accept after minor revision

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. TB among health care workers is an important issue and often under reported with huge implications for occupational safety and infection prevention and control. This is especially true now with COVID-19 as well.

I just have a few comments and suggestions for clarification.

1. May want to check grammar throughout especially plurals.

2. Page 8 lines 143-144 – The authors may want to clarify how ventilation was assessed? Was this simply whether windows were open or closed? Was there a window? Was ACH calculated?

What is meant by “ventilation in the room”? Which room? Did you assess infection control in all areas of all facilities? Or only in TB clinics/wards/rooms? Please clarify.

3. Page 10 line 195 – The authors mention that 78.7% did not have nor use N95 respirators. Can you specify what percentage did not have access to N95s versus percentage that did not use them?

4. Page 11 lines 216 – 218 – The authors state that the TB prevalence for HCWs is higher than the TB prevalence for Ethiopia (140 per 100,000) but do not state what the prevalence in HCWs is. Did the authors calculate a prevalence of TB among HCWs in this study for comparison? If so, may want to consider adding to the results section.

5. Table 2. What is meant by “room cleanness” and what impact does that have on airborne transmission and TB?

6. Table 4. Compare “had direct contact with known TB patients” in the table – but it is well known that contact with undiagnosed cases of TB is a greater risk than known TB patients on treatment. Did you assess the risk of contact with undiagnosed cases – perhaps in general medical wards or OPDs?

7. A general comment which may fit under limitations. In Ethiopia nursing staff rotates through different facilities and areas/wards within facilities at regular 3-6 month intervals. Did you consider this rotation of staff through the facility in terms of risk factors?

Reviewer #3: Comments.

The Title did not reflect the comparative nature of the work.in addition, I think prevalence should be used instead of magnitude of active tuberculosis.

Line 31: Please remove the 290 HCWs 290 Support staff as it has been captured in the result section to avoid repetition in the abstract section.

Line 39: The title of this manuscript did not reflect the comparative nature of the work between HCWs and Support Staff.

Line 40: TB infection prevention and control is the terminology to be used not TB infection prevention

Line 36: Repetition of study participants

Line 43-44: What is the magnitude of active TB in the general population?

Line 69: PPE abbreviation should be from line 69 at first mention

Line 101: Can the authors explain better how 2009 fiscal year will be captured in 2016/2017. This is rather confusing.

Methodology

Line 127: What inform the selection of 38 HFs? What is the average number of HFs in each of the selected zones?

Line 128: What inform the selection of 9 HCWs and 9suppor staff from facilities selected from the study? What is the staff strength of the HCWs and the Support Staff in each of the facility selected? Proportionate sampling should have been done to ensure adequate representation of each facility selected.

Line 143: How was the ventilation status of the rooms assessed? Which room was assessed for example, for the support staff? Were clinics assessed for the HCWS?

Line 145: Were trained professional nurses/ health officers’ part of the data collectors?

Lines 146-148: What happened to those who did not have any symptoms? All the participants should have been screened.

Line 205: What stage of the treatment were those five participants who were currently on treatment because for them to still be positive

Line 222: TBIC should be written in full at the first mention

References:

Line 307: date the reference cited should be included

Line 312: Page numbers should be provided

Results: There is no need to put study date on the title

Table 1: some of the variables in some cell is more than 100%

It is better to list all the support staff before HCWs.

What is the difference between case managers and treatment supporters?

The statistical test employed and the p-value that informed the comparison made in the text that showed that HCWs and Support staff did not differ significantly was not presented in the tables.

Grid lines should be removed from the tables.

In addition, there were lots of grammatical errors and syntax in the manuscript, hence the work should be edited for example but not limited to the following:

Line 26…” can be utilized”

Line 30: “to recruit” would have been better than “to target”

Line 73: ………….knowing the prevalence of active TB among HCWs

Line 81: besides ‘the’ use of PPE

Line 112: “Cashiers” not “Cashers”.

Line 162: “lab” should read “laboratory personnel”

Line 177: male/female “ratio” not “ration”

Line 197: “of whom” should read “of which”

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 11;16(6):e0253177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253177.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Mar 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We also thank the reviewers for their critical review of our manuscript and providing us important comments that help us to significantly improve our paper in advance. The following is our point by point response.

Journal Requirements:

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

Response: thank you we checked the references and revised as seen in the updated version of the manuscript.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The paper is of interest and well written. The discussion should be implemented . Limits of the study should be better discussed. Minor spelling check are required. I suggest to accept after minor revision

Response: Thank you for the comments. Now, the comments are accepted and have been addressed in the updated manuscript

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. TB among health care workers is an important issue and often under reported with huge implications for occupational safety and infection prevention and control. This is especially true now with COVID-19 as well.

I just have a few comments and suggestions for clarification.

1. May want to check grammar throughout especially plurals.

Response: thank you for the comment, and it has been addressed in the new version manuscript

2. Page 8 lines 143-144 – The authors may want to clarify how ventilation was assessed? Was this simply whether windows were open or closed? Was there a window? Was ACH calculated?

Response: thank you, the ventilation of the room was evaluated and considered ventilated if a room had open window and cross ventilation was present with the door. ACH was not calculated. We added a better definition of our measurements in the new version manuscript

What is meant by “ventilation in the room”? Which room? Did you assess infection control in all areas of all facilities? Or only in TB clinics/wards/rooms? Please clarify.

Response: thank you, how we measured room ventilation is outline above. As presented in table two, 381 of the participants (91 support staff and 290 HCWs) worked in different rooms such as TB clinic, card room, x-ray, laboratory, etc. Of which, 174 participants worked in well ventilated rooms in the health facilities of the Amhara region, Ethiopia (Table 2). Others who had no room to work in like security guards did not have rooms to be evaluated. We made this now more clear in the method section of the manuscript. We did assess infection control in all areas of facilities included in the study this is outlined in in the updated manuscript.

3. Page 10 line 195 – The authors mention that 78.7% did not have nor use N95 respirators. Can you specify what percentage did not have access to N95s versus percentage that did not use them?

Response: thank you for the comments. Of the total 124 participants who had N95 respirator access, 82 (66.1%) did not use the respirator to prevent TB infection. This has now been made more explicit in the results section of the revised paper.

4. Page 11 lines 216 – 218 – The authors state that the TB prevalence for HCWs is higher than the TB prevalence for Ethiopia (140 per 100,000) but do not state what the prevalence in HCWs is. Did the authors calculate a prevalence of TB among HCWs in this study for comparison? If so, may want to consider adding to the results section.

Response: The prevalence of TB disease found in this study was (1.6% ~ 1600 per 100000 populations). Now, it has been included as per the reviewer’s recommendation

5. Table 2. What is meant by “room cleanness” and what impact does that have on airborne transmission and TB?

Response: thank you for the comment. Room cleanness was evaluated by interview and observation of the room using a standardize checklist. It was included to check the implementation of general infection prevention practices like cleaning of the floor, benches, chairs, etc with appropriate detergent such as bleach solution.

6. Table 4. Compare “had direct contact with known TB patients” in the table – but it is well known that contact with undiagnosed cases of TB is a greater risk than known TB patients on treatment. Did you assess the risk of contact with undiagnosed cases – perhaps in general medical wards or OPDs?

Response: thank you for this constructive comment. Honestly, we did not assess the risk of contact with undiagnosed cases assuming all of the HCWs and support staff would have had a risk of contact then.

7. A general comment which may fit under limitations. In Ethiopia nursing staff rotates through different facilities and areas/wards within facilities at regular 3-6 month intervals. Did you consider this rotation of staff through the facility in terms of risk factors?

Response: thank you for the comment. We did not consider rotation of staff through different facilities and areas/wards within facilities in terms of risk factors. We have now included this issue under the limitations in the updated version manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Comments.

The Title did not reflect the comparative nature of the work. In addition, I think prevalence should be used instead of magnitude of active tuberculosis.

Response: thank you, now the title has been modified in the new version manuscript.

Line 31: Please remove the 290 HCWs 290 Support staff as it has been captured in the result section to avoid repetition in the abstract section.

Response: thank you for this comment. Now, it has been removed from the abstract section

Line 39: The title of this manuscript did not reflect the comparative nature of the work between HCWs and Support Staff.

Response: thank you for the comments, our objective is to show the burden of active tuberculosis equally affected support staff as healthcare workers. The prevalence found in HCWs is 1.4 and in support staff 1.7% but the difference was not significant indicating both of them equally suffered from TB diseases

Line 40: TB infection prevention and control is the terminology to be used not TB infection prevention

Response: thank you, now it has been corrected

Line 36: Repetition of study participants

Response: thank you, now it has been corrected

Line 43-44: What is the magnitude of active TB in the general population?

Response: thank you, in the general population, it is 140 per 100000 populations. And now it has been included in the new version manuscript.

Line 69: PPE abbreviation should be from line 69 at first mention

Response: thank you, now it has been abbreviated as the reviewer’s advice

Line 101: Can the authors explain better how 2009 fiscal year will be captured in 2016/2017. This is rather confusing.

Response: thank you, the 2009 Ethiopian fiscal year is 08 July 2016 to 07 July 2017

Methodology

Line 127: What inform the selection of 38 HFs? What is the average number of HFs in each of the selected zones?

The average number of health facilities (HFs) in each selected zone was 52 in Awi, 12 in Bahir Dar, 102 in South Gondar, 109 in East Gojjam, and 70 in North Wollo. Then, proportionally we allocated 6 HFs from Awi, 2 HFs from Bahir Dar, 11 HFs from South Gondar, 12 HFs from East Gojjam, and 7 HFs from North Wollo zones making a total of 38 sampled HFs. More details on the selection process has been added in the updated version manuscript.

Line 128: What inform the selection of 9 HCWs and 9suppor staff from facilities selected from the study? What is the staff strength of the HCWs and the Support Staff in each of the facility selected? Proportionate sampling should have been done to ensure adequate representation of each facility selected.

Response: thank you for this comment really help to improve our manuscript. This was planned to represent 580 samples equally distributed to the 38 health facilities making 16 participants per site (580/38=15.3~16). That is 8 HCWs and 8 support staff interviewed per facility. The 9 HCWs and 9 support staff described was clerical error and now it has been corrected.

Line 143: How was the ventilation status of the rooms assessed? Which room was assessed for example, for the support staff? Were clinics assessed for the HCWS?

Response: The ventilation of the room was evaluated as well ventilated if a room had open window and cross ventilated with the door. As presented in table two, 381 of the participants (91 support staff and 290 HCWs) worked in different rooms such as TB clinic, card room, x-ray, laboratory, etc. Of which, 174 participants worked in well ventilated rooms in the health facilities of the Amhara region, Ethiopia (Table 2). Others who had no room to work in like security guards did not have rooms so that not evaluated.

Line 145: Were trained professional nurses/ health officers’ part of the data collectors?

Response: thank you for the comments. Yes, first we trained professional nurses/health officers on how to fill the questionnaire and the way on how to collect during observation. Then, those trained data collectors evaluated TB symptoms from the study participants.

Lines 146-148: What happened to those who did not have any symptoms? All the participants should have been screened.

Response: thank you for the constructive comments. Based on the Ethiopian national TB screening algorithm, those who had no any active TB symptoms were considered as TB screening negative. This has been made more explicit in the revised manuscript

Line 205: What stage of the treatment were those five participants who were currently on treatment because for them to still be positive

Response: thank you, those five patients were on the intensive phase of TB treatment, and now we describe in the updated manuscript

Line 222: TBIC should be written in full at the first mention

Response: thank you, TBIC refers to TB infection control, and now it has been written in full at the first mention in the new version manuscript

References:

Line 307: date the reference cited should be included

Response: thank you, now date the reference cited has been included

Line 312: Page numbers should be provided

Response: Thank you, now it has been provided in the new version manuscript

Results: There is no need to put study date on the title

Response: thank you, study date has been removed on the title of result tables

Table 1: some of the variables in some cell is more than 100%

It is better to list all the support staff before HCWs.

Response: thank you, the variables having more than 100% has been revised, and support staff has been listed before HCWs. See updated version manuscript

What is the difference between case managers and treatment supporters?

Response: Thank you, Case manager: support staff assigned to help patients in guiding and facilitating the diagnosis and treatment in health facilities; Treatment supporter: support staff assigned to follow treatment adherence of patients using different communication mechanisms such as phone call. We have now described this better in the revised version of the manuscript

The statistical test employed and the p-value that informed the comparison made in the text that showed that HCWs and Support staff did not differ significantly was not presented in the tables.

Response: thank you, p value has been presented in the table 2 of the updated manuscript.

Grid lines should be removed from the tables.

Response: thank you, the grid lines has been removed from the tables in the updated manuscript

In addition, there were lots of grammatical errors and syntax in the manuscript, hence the work should be edited for example but not limited to the following:

Line 26…” can be utilized”

Response: thank you, now it has been revised

Line 30: “to recruit” would have been better than “to target”

Response: thank you, now it has been revised

Line 73: ………….knowing the prevalence of active TB among HCWs

Response: thank you, now it has been revised

Line 81: besides ‘the’ use of PPE

Response: thank you, now ‘the’ has been included

Line 112: “Cashiers” not “Cashers”.

Response: thank you, now it has been corrected

Line 162: “lab” should read “laboratory personnel”

Response: thank you, now it has been corrected

Line 177: male/female “ratio” not “ration”

Response: thank you, now it has been corrected

Line 197: “of whom” should read “of which”

Response: thank you, now it has been revised

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Frederick Quinn

26 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-03747R1

Prevalence of active tuberculosis disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings of the Amhara region, Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shiferaw,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript. If you will need significantly 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript was substantially implemented. All comments have been addressed. The paper can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors had done the corrections but there are still some grammatical errors. Other comments have been attached

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos one 2021 March Comments.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 11;16(6):e0253177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253177.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 May 2021

Dear editor, thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and we also thank the reviewers for comments and critics helping us to improve our paper. The following are point by point responses.

The authors had done the corrections but the manuscript still need to be edited for grammatical errors.

Response: thank you, grammatical errors have been corrected throughout the whole manuscript.

In addition, I suggest that the variables in table one should be listed in descending other;

Support staff:

Cleaner 58(20.0)

Data clerk 51(17.6)

Cashier 42(14.5)

HCWs:

Nurse 122 (42.1)

Laboratory staff 50(17.2)

Pharmacy staff 34(11.7)

Response: thank you for the valuable comment. Now, table one has been updated according to the reviewer’s advice

Attachment

Submitted filename: point by point.docx

Decision Letter 2

Frederick Quinn

31 May 2021

Prevalence of active tuberculosis disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings of the Amhara region, Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-03747R2

Dear Dr. Shiferaw,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Please correct the grammar and language issues as noted in the original review. It still appears that these have not been corrected.

Reviewer #3: Thanks for asking me to review the manuscript titled: “The Prevalence of active tuberculosis disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings of the Amhara region, Ethiopia.” (PONE-D-21-03747R2) for the third time.

The authors had done the corrections and the manuscript has been edited for grammatical errors.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos one 2021 May Comments.docx

Acceptance letter

Frederick Quinn

3 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-03747R2

Prevalence of active tuberculosis disease among healthcare workers and support staff in healthcare settings of the Amhara region, Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Shiferaw:

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. Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos one 2021 March Comments.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: point by point.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos one 2021 May Comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES