Figures
Abstract
Implementation of TB infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in health facilities is frequently inadequate, despite nosocomial TB transmission to patients and health workers causing harm. We aimed to review qualitative evidence of the complexity associated with implementing TB IPC, to help guide the development of TB IPC implementation plans. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies that used qualitative methods to explore the experiences of health workers implementing TB IPC in health facilities. We searched eight databases in November 2021, complemented by citation tracking. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts of potentially eligible papers. We used the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklist for quality appraisal, thematic synthesis to identify key findings and the GRADE-CERQual method to appraise the certainty of review findings. The review protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO, ID CRD42020165314. We screened 1062 titles and abstracts and reviewed 102 full texts, with 37 studies included in the synthesis. We developed 10 key findings, five of which we had high confidence in. We describe several components of TB IPC as a complex intervention. Health workers were influenced by their personal occupational TB risk perceptions when deciding whether to implement TB IPC and neglected the contribution of TB IPC to patient safety. Health workers and researchers expressed multiple uncertainties (for example the duration of infectiousness of people with TB), assumptions and misconceptions about what constitutes effective TB IPC, including focussing TB IPC on patients known with TB on treatment who pose a small risk of transmission. Instead, TB IPC resources should target high risk areas for transmission (crowded, poorly ventilated spaces). Furthermore, TB IPC implementation plans should support health workers to translate TB IPC guidelines to local contexts, including how to navigate unintended stigma caused by IPC, and using limited IPC resources effectively.
Citation: van der Westhuizen H-M, Dorward J, Roberts N, Greenhalgh T, Ehrlich R, Butler CC, et al. (2022) Health worker experiences of implementing TB infection prevention and control: A qualitative evidence synthesis to inform implementation recommendations. PLOS Glob Public Health 2(7): e0000292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000292
Editor: Dione Benjumea-Bedoya, Corporacion Universitaria Remington, COLOMBIA
Received: December 29, 2021; Accepted: June 10, 2022; Published: July 7, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 van der Westhuizen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All information that forms part of the study analysis is included in the supplementary files.
Funding: This review is part of Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen’s (HMW) doctoral research which is funded by a Rhodes scholarship. JD is funded by the Wellcome Trust PhD Programme for Primary Care Clinicians (216421/Z/19/Z). TG’s research is funded from the following sources: National Institute for Health Research (BRC-1215-20008), ESRC (ES/V010069/1), Wellcome Trust (WT104830MA) and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2020.139). STC is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE). CCB acknowledges part support as Senior Investigator of the NIHR, the NIHR Community Healthcare Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative (MIC), and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Health Care Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, and was a part-time salaried general practitioner for the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Globally, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) leads to 1.4 million deaths per year [1]. In high TB burden countries, health facilities may become hot spots for TB transmission due to poor TB infection prevention and control (IPC) implementation [2]. The most visible consequence has been health workers falling ill with TB at an incidence rate 2.94 higher than the general population [3]. Nosocomial TB spread in health facilities also places patients at risk, although this phenomenon has been more difficult to quantify.
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, exisiting research about TB IPC implementation was used to inform IPC strategies for COVID-19 [4]. Yet despite this forewarning, many of the implementation deficiencies that have long plagued TB IPC programmes became apparent on a global scale during the COVID-19 pandemic: the difficulty of identifying patients who have not yet been diagnosed but pose a risk of infection to others; health facilities without adequate ventilation infrastructure; unreliable supply chains of particulate filter respirators; health worker discomfort when using respirators for prolonged periods; social influences on the acceptability of mask wearing and the negative effect of unclear or changing guidelines [4–7]. Nosocomial transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has, similarly to TB, played a significant role in the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic [8]. The difficulties in preventing transmission of old and new pathogens have exposed the complexity associated with implementing airborne IPC measures in health facilities, and raised the question of potential synergy in reducing nosocomial transmission of different respiratory infectious diseases.
Yet, within the TB IPC field, poor TB IPC is most commonly attributed to a failure on an invidual health worker level to implement TB IPC guidelines, with researchers often recommending further TB IPC training to remedy this [9]. This framing ignores the complexity associated with TB IPC as intervention, and does not take implementation difficulties into consideration. The 2019 World Health Organisation (WHO) updated TB IPC guidelines have responded to this by discussing implementation challenges of each TB IPC subcomponent (administrative controls, environmental controls, and personal protective equipment) [10]. The implementation considerations were based on the expert opinion of the guideline committee.
In contrast to using expert opinion, synthesising qualitative research is a more systematic method of identifying implementation considerations to accompany guidelines [11]. A qualitative evidence synthesis allows the exploration of the complexity within the health system and the complexity inherent in the intervention [12]. In addition to this, GRADE-CerQUAL (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) methods allow researchers to express confidence in the qualitative research recommendations in a transparent way [13].
Exisiting reviews on TB IPC have not addressed this: two mixed method reviews of TB IPC implementation led by Tan [9] and Zwama [14] focused on identifying research gaps and neither used qualitative evidence synthesis. Tan and colleagues’ 2020 systematic review explored the barriers to and facilitators of TB IPC in low- and middle-income countries from the perspective of healthcare workers [9]. They used an existing macro, meso, and micro health systems framework deductively to classify these barriers and facilitators, with the authors concluding that a major limitation of existing research is ‘framing the problem as one of poor adherence to guidelines by healthcare workers’ [9]. Zwama and collegues’ 2021 scoping review looked at health system factors influencing TB IPC implementation [14]. Using a framework developed by Sheikh, TB IPC implementation considerations were categorised into political context, policy decisions, system hardware and system software. The authors proposed a greater focus on the complexity associated with TB IPC using a whole systems approach [14].
We approached this topic by paying particular attention to descriptions of complexity—looking for ‘adaptive solutions’ or workarounds that heath workers use when resources are limited, and how they prioritise different components of TB IPC as intervention [15]. We aimed to use an inductive approach to review qualitative evidence of the complexity associated with implementing TB IPC, in order to guide the development of TB IPC implementation plans.
Methods
This review used Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) methods for developing implementation recommendations [16]. The protocol for this review was preregistered on PROSPERO. (ID CRD42020165314) We made two changes to the pre-registered protocol by removing search restrictions for dates and high TB burden countries as we decided to broaden the scope of this review.
Research question
Our initial research question—what are the experiences of health workers implementing TB IPC?—was used as starting point to develop follow-on research questions informed by provisional data analysis. These were:
- What are the main narratives in health worker explanations of why TB IPC is difficult to implement?
- What are the underlying assumptions that health workers and researchers make about implementing TB IPC, that need a critical assessment?
- How can exploration of the complexity of TB IPC as intervention, and the complexity of the system in which it is introduced, be used to support implementation plans?
Criteria for considering studies for this review
We included primary research studies using qualitative methods and analysis, or mixed methods studies with a qualitative analysis component where qualitative results were reported separately. Studies had to report an account provided by health workers of some aspect of their experience with implementing TB IPC. The term ‘health workers’ included doctors, nurses, dentists, radiologists, community health workers and other health personnel like administrators who implement TB IPC. Healthcare settings included primary health care facilities, district hospitals, and hospitals providing specialist care or community-based care.
Search strategy and screening
We searched eight databases including Medline [OvidSP) [1946—present], Embase (OvidSP) [1974—present], Global Health (OvidSP) [1973–2021 Week 46], CINAHL (EBSCOHost) [1982—present], African Index Medicus (via https://www.globalindexmedicus.net/) and Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science (Web of Science Core Collection) [1900—present] on 23rd November 2021. We developed a search strategy based on title and abstract keywords and subject headings to describe our key concepts of health professionals, TB infection prevention and control and experiences. We applied a filter for qualitative research and did not limit by date or language. (For full search strategies see S1 Appendix). References were exported to Endnote 20 for deduplication prior to screening. On 22 December 2021 we also conducted forward and backward citation tracking of publications meeting the inclusion criteria by looking at references of included studies and studies citing them. Only studies with abstracts that were available in English were screened.
Selection process
The titles and abstracts of all publications identified in the search were assessed using the inclusion criteria by two reviewers (HvdW and JD or HvdW and STC). Disparities were resolved through discussion with a different third reviewer (JD or STC). Full texts were obtained and screened against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers (HvdW and JD or STC). Reasons for exclusions were documented.
Quality appraisal
The quality of research papers was independently evaluated by two reviewers (HvdW and JD or STC) using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist [17]. We did not exclude studies based on quality but considered the CASP score when determining the contribution of studies to the key findings of the evidence synthesis and when expressing the confidence in the key findings.
Reflexivity statement
This review was led by HvdW, a doctoral researcher using qualitative research methods. She has experience of developing and presenting training on TB IPC implementation for South African health workers and working as a health worker in this high TB burden setting. This brings a pragmatic approach to this review, which prioritises how TB IPC implementation can be improved in practice. Other collaborators bring expertise in public health, health worker behaviour change research, occupational health, complexity theory, and the experiences of frontline health workers in a high TB burden country.
Data analysis
The studies were analysed using thematic synthesis as method. It involved three stages of analysis (led by HvdW): line-by-line coding of the findings and discussion sections of primary studies, organising the codes into related areas to develop descriptive themes, and then developing analytical themes [18]. The descriptive and analytical themes were developed in discussion with all authors. The coding was done using MAXQDA2020 software. Two papers (2/37, ~5%), selected based on the richness of data, were second coded by STC and compared with the coding done by HvdW. This was used to discuss the approach to coding (balancing detail with summarising main themes) and to inform decisions on what would be coded as data. We considered both the original data, as it is reported in the results section of the paper, as well as the original researchers’ interpretation in each study as described in the discussion section.
After completing the initial analysis, we explored the one theme in more detail by looking at descriptions of TB IPC measures that were being implemented outside of what is recommended in international guidelines. We explored how misconceptions (an incorrect understanding), assumptions (inferring a relationship where there may be none), and uncertainty about guidelines influenced TB IPC implementation. We also noted ‘workarounds’ which health workers used when facing resource constraints in implementation. We based the classification of these underlying factors on what we as review authors viewed to be effective TB IPC. While we acknowledge our interpretation may be contested by other infection control practioners, a more extensive discussion of the evidence is beyond the scope of this review. Our aim was to demonstrate the wide variety of TB IPC measures being used, some which are unlikely to be effective in preventing TB spread.
Appraisal of certainty of review findings
The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to describe our confidence in our review findings. It is based on considering the subcomponents as defined by Lewin and colleagues [13]:
- methodological limitations: ‘concerns about the design or conduct of the primary studies that contributed evidence to an individual review finding’,
- coherence: ‘how clear and cogent the fit is between the data from the primary studies and a review finding that synthesises that data’,
- adequacy of data: ‘an overall determination of the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding’, and
- relevance: ‘the extent to which the body of evidence from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context specified in the review question.’
The CERQual evidence profile was developed by discussing the review findings among authors and selecting the key findings. We developed an implementation consideration accompanying each of the key findings, which is presented in the discussion section. We used guidance developed by Glenton and colleagues to develop the implementation considerations [16].
Results
Description of studies
We considered 1 062 titles and abstracts and 102 full text papers for inclusion. A total of 37 studies were included in the synthesis, all of which were published after 2010 (Fig 1).
S1 Table summarises information of the included studies, including key findings and use of theoretical frameworks. S2 Table provides the CASP score of all of the included studies. The research studies were undertaken in fourteen different low or middle incoming countries (based on the World Bank classification [19]): South Africa (n = 16), Nigeria (n = 4), the Dominican Republic (n = 3), India (n = 2), Uganda (n = 2), Ethiopia (n = 2), with one study from Mozambique, Ghana, Papa New Guinea, Brazil, Zambia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Russia, respectively. All of the countries except the Dominican Republic appear among the 2021 WHO high-burden countries for TB, HIV-associated TB and drug-resistant TB [20]. Africa as region had strong representation, followed by Asia and the Americas. The perspectives of health workers in the qualitative research included in this review are therefore those of workers in low—middle income, high TB burden countries.
The primary research was based at different types of health care facilities, with the majority focussing on TB IPC at hospital-level (n = 12), or for specialised TB or DR-TB units (n = 12), while some were based at primary health care facilities (n = 5) and other studies combined data from different facility types (n = 6). For studies with a rural focus, see for example Marme [21] and Tshitangano [22–24]. Health workers of all groups were included, most commonly nurses, but also doctors, laboratory staff, TB programme staff, housekeeping staff and facility managers. Two studies specifically recruited health workers who had experiences of occupational TB [25, 26].
Thematic synthesis main findings
Using thematic synthesis, we developed five themes. We were guided by narratives frequently expressed by health workers working in different settings (recurring patterns), and sought to reflect the depth of explanations (rich descriptions). Some studies represented a simplified perspective of the implementation challenges of TB IPC. Other studies approached the subject with greater depth and nuance—providing “complex narratives”. For purposes of contrast, these distinctions are schematically summarised in Table 1.
In the next sections, we discuss the complex narratives that contribute to each theme in depth, highlighting the ten key findings from this review that could be used to inform TB IPC implementation planning. Regarding our confidence in the ten key findings, five have high confidence, three moderate confidence and two low confidence. Table 2 provides an evidence summary of our 10 key findings. For a complete CERQual evidence profile, see S2 Appendix.
Theme 1: Interactions between TB IPC training, risk perception and experiences of workplace safety.
Health workers flagged insufficient TB IPC training as an important contributor to poor TB IPC implementation [21, 26, 27, 30, 32–34, 41, 47–49, 52–55]. They described existing IPC training as targeted towards health workers working in TB wards, Directly Observed Therapy Short-course (DOTS) programmes, or at facility managers [32, 55]. In some instances, having TB training led to TB work being delegated to or reserved for these health workers [21, 48]. Gaps in training included uncertainty about which IPC measures are important, a lack of refresher training after graduation, and difficulties in training new staff when there is high employee turnover [32, 37, 50, 53, 56].
Self-perceived risk of developing TB contributed to the importance health workers attached to implementing TB IPC [25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38–42]. (Table 2, Key finding 1) They described being influenced by the experiences of colleagues who had developed TB [27]; for example, they recalled a medical student who developed drug-induced hepatitis due to TB medication and died [33]. Health workers who had witnessed the suffering of drug-resistant TB patients felt incapable of going through it themselves. One nurse at a drug-resistant TB treatment centre in South Africa mentioned, ‘All that medications and injections—I’d rather kill myself than go through what those poor patients go through’ [51]. A contributory fear of health workers was that they would infect family members [27, 28, 35, 45].
Health workers’ response to occupational risk fell into three groups. In the first, they perceived themselves not to be at risk of TB and did not value TB IPC training [29]. Misconceptions contributing to this included: the belief that latent TB infection would be protective against developing TB disease [29], and that BCG vaccination [53], ‘eating well’ before examining patients [35] or taking multivitamins [27] prevented TB infection. A second group believed they were at risk of TB, valued TB IPC training and felt equipped to care for TB patients [34]. A third group were aware of their occupational TB risk and received TB IPC training, but were faced with inadequate resources to implement the preventative practices that they knew were important [29, 36]. This is conceptualised as ‘powerlessness’ by Chapman and colleagues, when discussing their findings:
“If HCWs perceive that their occupational risk is high and beyond their control, irrespective of their use of infection control measures, such as in understaffed clinical areas, excess workloads, or absence of an isolation ward, then they may feel powerless in their consistent use of M. tuberculosis infection control measures” [29].
Some health workers felt their TB exposure was part of broader concerns about feeling unvalued and unsafe at work, and perceived themselves to have limited power over their working conditions [25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38–42] (Table 2, Key Finding 2). Health workers phrased this as working in a system that did not care about their health. One primary care nurse in South Africa said “….nobody cares, even if I die, it doesn’t matter” [32]. As an example of feeling uncared for by the health system, health workers mentioned that they did not trust the respirators that they are provided as PPE, because they often fitted poorly, involved counterfeit manufacture or unknown brands, or they received a surgical or cloth mask instead of an N95 respirator [27, 30, 35, 40, 41, 51, 54].
Working in conditions that feel unsafe, and feeling poorly equipped to implement TB IPC, may influence patient care. One nurse working in a TB ward in South Africa described this as: “I feel like I am putting myself in danger to be honest. I am scared to come into contact with those patients because most of them are rude and dangerous” [41]. In some instances, health workers may stigmatise patients because of their concerns about being exposed to TB, and therefore compromise clinical care. Examples included health workers who avoided contact with TB patients, shortened consultations, and restricted patient movement through placing fencing around wards and locking patient rooms [31, 33, 34, 41, 43–48] (Table 2, Key finding 3). Health workers described how fear of being infected with TB leads them to avoid TB work, with some health workers viewed caring for TB patients punishment [43] or work for junior staff [45]. They also described examples where patients were declined intensive care, such as dialysis, or care at a referral hospital because of infection risk [46].
For health workers, working in conditions where they felt unsafe blunted their occupational TB risk perception [36]. One professional nurse decribed this transition as: ‘I used to be scared when I started but I have gone past that now… yesterday we were so busy here, there is no time to get paranoid’ [37]. This included both a high clinical load [29] and the emotional load association with caring for patients who are very ill. A nurse reflected on this: “The most painful and traumatizing thing in the TB wards is that patients die in large numbers and it is so stressing to see people dying just before you every day. … We do not get even debriefing sessions. As a result, we feel that we are losing it, at times we just can’t cope” [41].
Kallon and collegues group many of these workplace considerations under organisational culture as framework, and argue that the influence of organisational culture on TB IPC use is underresearched and underappreciated. The researchers conclude that the responsibility of implementing TB IPC is incorrectly shifted to individual workers:
‘The lack of role modelling, the under-supply of masks, and the vague and poorly enforced protocols around mask-wearing, for example, all communicated that wearing a mask was less a collectively held and enforced responsibility and more a matter of personal choice and agency’ [36].
Theme 2: Technology and organisational implementation challenges of TB IPC in health facilities.
Health workers viewed unavailability of sufficient stock of particulate filter respirators as the main barrier to using respiratory protective equipment [21, 26–31, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 45–52]. Doctors or health workers in TB wards or DOTS centres had preferential access over nurses, housekeeping staff [49], or staff in other non-TB sections [28] (Table 2, Key finding 4). Other factors that contributed to poor access to respirators included high unit cost, poor supply chain management, lack of prioritisation by managers as reflected, for example in poor supply chain management and health workers being expected to purchase their own protective equipment [31, 49].
Fluctuations in the availability of PPE prevented health workers from developing a habit of wearing a respirator, as well as making them feel that sporadic use wass futile. A TB staff member in Mozambique said: ‘It should be there all the time. Because if the material is there today, but finished tomorrow, I am not interested, I am not protected at all […] do I not contract the bacteria when I don’t have the material?” [28] Health workers described respirators as difficult to use, “suffocating… and feels hot”[37] and interfering with make-up. Respirators caused communication difficulties with patients who spoke a different language or who were impaired by ototoxic drug-resistant TB medication and depended on lip reading [31]. Health workers paradoxically described using respirators less in poorly ventilated settings, where they described greater discomfort with use [36].
Health workers often worked in facilities where the infrastructure was not designed for airborne infection control measures, with waiting areas, consultation rooms and wards that lacked natural or mechanical ventilation and insufficient isolation rooms [21, 27–30, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46–56]. (Table 2, Key finding 5) One health worker working in Uganda described the struggle they faced to establish a safer waiting room:
“When we were conducting the TB infection assessment, the ventilation was found to be at 0%. … The worst thing is that these HIV patients are seated together with TB patients and some of them are … not yet on treatment. We requested to move the clinic to a … better ventilated place out there on the veranda, but it was rejected. So [name of donor funded project] came in and gave us a tent, which didn’t help us much because it came without seats and immediately [after] we put it up, it broke down and we didn’t use it. So we have remained in the same place up to today” [44].
Some health workers responded to spatial limitations by moving DOT consultations and sputum sample collection outdoors. In some instances this compromised privacy, but was easy to implement [47]. The ventilation measures described by health workers involved optimising natural ventilation—such as opening windows and shifting consultations outdoors. We did not find descriptions of frequent use of mechanical ventilation, air filtration such as High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters or upper-room germicidal ultraviolet disinfection [52].
Health workers in primary care and rural health care facilities described receiving fewer resources and worse TB IPC infrastructure than urban and hospital settings [21, 32]. Yet in our broader dataset we noted that health workers in middle income countries (compared to low income countries) and in tertiary hospitals described similar TB IPC implementation barriers to those of low income or rural hospital settings [30, 50], suggesting that TB IPC is difficult to implement across the whole resource spectrum.
Theme 3: Policy and implementation plan gaps relating to TB IPC and occupational health.
Health workers and researchers highlighted the following obstacles to implementing TB IPC: the lack of a national IPC policy [45], conflicting national TB IPC guidelines [32, 40] and the absence of a local TB IPC implementation plan for facilities [24, 37] and uncertainty about how TB IPC policies translate to the work of different health workers (for example dentists) [36]. They viewed national TB IPC guidelines as instructions that also provided a mechanism to motivate health workers to comply, for example, through a central government audit [32].
Yet health workers mistrusted whether TB IPC policies adequately protected them. For example, they were uncertain about whether such guidelines described the correct duration of infectiousness of TB patients [32] or how TB IPC policy should translate into daily practice. A health worker from South Africa explained the uncertainty: “Always wear the N95 mask, or conserve them due to expense? Separate XDR and MDR TB patients, or allow them to mix at times?” [40] Health workers described trying to make individual management decisions but felt there was a need for TB IPC implementation plans to address practical concerns, including around respirator re-use [36].
At one facility, a hospital manager said policy implementation, in contrast to policy availability, was the biggest challenge [40]. Involving health workers in discussing and developing the guidelines of a facility was suggested as way to ‘create a sense of ownership’ [28]. One facility identified a facility-based champion as a way of making TB IPC a priority, yet cautioned it should be balanced with maintaining TB IPC as a collective responsibility [37].
Health workers expressed uncertainty about whether TB was legally defined as an occupational illness. Underreporting obscured the extent to which health workers are affected by occupational TB [32, 37, 38, 40] (Table 2, Key finding 6) and influenced risk perceptions of health workers and managers [38]. Several health workers viewed poor TB IPC implementation and occupational TB to be an individual’s problem, instead of a health system’s problem [36, 37]. A health worker in South Africa said: ‘The thing is with TB and being a health worker, should I get it, I know it’s going to be my problem. I won’t be able to prove that I got it here. So I guess if you work here, it is at your own risk. That’s how I feel’ [37]. Even among health workers who perceived TB to be an occupational illness, and who were aware that they could qualify for compensation, did not trust the bureaucratic progresses of accessing compensation, with one example provided from South Africa [37].
Health workers also described occupational health service shortcomings: lack of trained staff [38], a shift of the responsibility to implement an occupational health policy to untrained staff [38], lack of confidentiality within staff health clinics or occupational health services [38, 40], and absent occupational TB screening programs [27–29, 30, 40, 52, 54]. At times, TB IPC and occupational health policy implementation was viewed as a lower priority than clinical work [49].
Theme 4: Health worker perceptions of patient responses to TB IPC.
Many health workers described patients as non-compliant with the TB IPC measures that they initiated [27, 33, 37, 40, 42, 48, 50, 51, 54–56]. Health workers framed this as a knowledge deficit [57] which they tried to correct through providing health education or pamphlets, but that patients did not adhere to nor understand [44]. A South African nurse said: ‘Most of the [TB] patients are stubborn and their behaviour is uncooperative. … They have a bad attitude, don’t want to eat, carelessly cough around, refuse their tablets. They are a risk for everyone. Often I don’t trust them’ [50]. Health workers distrusted TB patients because they felt patients might pretend to have TB [50] or use coughing as way to skip the queue [28]. Some health workers felt patients were deliberately trying to infect them ‘through wicked strategies’ like putting their sputum in the health worker’s food [43]. One counter-example was cited where patients reminded nursing staff to wear their protective equipment [27]. Tudor and collegues described similar narratives of ‘deviant patients’ not ‘complying’ and observed that this may be a way for health workers to shift the blame for TB transmission in healthcare settings from health workers to patients [51].
Yet health workers also considered stigma to be an important impediment to using TB IPC measures [21, 28, 30–32, 36, 39, 56, 57] (Table 2, Key finding 7) Specifically, they viewed patients to as feeling stigmatised by TB IPC measures, such as being singled out to wear a mask for source control [44]. Brouwer and colleagues reflected on this, noting that masks can have ‘an alienating or depersonalizing effect and reduce the HCWs’ ability to provide compassionate care’ [28]. Similarly, health workers struggled to decide between closing their consultation room door to respect the privacy of patients, or leaving an open door to improve ventilation [47]. Reducing the stigma associated with wearing a mask or a respirator was highlighted as an IPC priority [28], with one study suggested universal mask-wearing by health workers and patients as potential solution [36].
Instead of looking at ways to mitigate the stigma associated with wearing a mask, some health workers did not use PPE and avoided prolonged contact with patients. A physician from the Dominican Republic said: “It is more cultural than anything. I put on a mask as if I am going to become infected [by a patient]. It looks ugly, so we do not do this. We do, however, keep our distance from patients and avoid speaking closely face-to-face” [30]. Health workers avoided entering the rooms of patients with TB or spent the shortest possible time there [39]. They also avoided making patients wait during the consultation while they fetched PPE [29], deeming it acceptable to ‘rather endanger [their] lives in order to save lives’ [41]. Chapman and collegues offered an alternative to framing TB IPC to be in opposition to providing compassionate care. Instead, they believe health workers ‘who fail to adhere to recommended M. tuberculosis infection control measures may not be upholding their ethical and moral responsibility to protect their own as well as their patients’ health’ [30].
Dodor and colleagues drew a distinction between using IPC measures rationally (to prevent becoming infected) and using it irrationally (out of fear, when it is not needed, when is stigmatising and not effective in reducing transmission) [43]. From the overall dataset contributing to this theme, we noticed that this distinction is based on the underlying assumptions that health workers and researchers make about what constitutes ‘effective’ IPC measures. While effectiveness was not the focus of the review, there is evidence to suggest that patients are concerned about the spread of TB in health facilities, and that their views towards TB IPC measures might be more nuanced than health workers perceive [57].
Theme 5: Underlying uncertainties that influence how TB IPC tools are used.
We indentified three important uncertainties that health workers described with regards to TB IPC implementation. Firstly, health workers described prioritising TB IPC implementation in clinical areas where patients known with TB or DR TB were seen, in particular, TB wards and DOTS centres [21, 29, 32–34, 36, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52–55] By contrast, housekeeping, administrative staff and community health workers were overlooked, as well as health workers providing undifferentiated patient care. (Table 2, Key finding 8) This targeting of TB IPC resources also demonstrated localisation of TB risk, with the contribution of undiagnosed people with TB to transmission being underappreciate both by health workers and researchers undertaking the studies. Kallon and collegues described what they observed in primary health care facilities in South Africa: ‘These acts of locating risks in specific physical spaces within the facility or associating it with exposure to particular individuals emerged as an important shared, implicit knowledge in many facilities. It was not always clear whether HCWs really believed TB risk could so easily be located and managed, or they believed this inadequate approach was the only practical one available to them (or some mix of the two)’ [36]. They note that with an airborne illness, locating risks only to certain areas in a health care facility (the TB room) or certain patients (those with drug-resistant TB) is not an effective or logical use of TB IPC resources [36].
The second uncertainty that was prominent in our data relates to duration of infectiousness. Health workers described a wide variation in the duration over which that they perceived people with TB to be infectious [32, 43, 50] (Table 2, Key finding 9). This ranged from deeming patients less infectious immediately after starting treatment, to continuing infection control measures for the duration of TB treatment [50]. This has important implications for TB IPC resource allocation in facilities.
Thirdly, health workers described uncertainty about the modes of TB transmission.
They used a variety of IPC measures aimed at preventing the spread of TB, including contact, droplet and airborne precautions [23, 28, 34, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 54, 56]. (Table 2, Key finding 10). While WHO guidelines describe TB as exclusively transmitted by the airborne route [10], some of the researchers and health workers focussed on droplet and contact precautions [45, 56] including ‘showering and changing clothes so they did not carry the bacillus home’ [35]. Health workers placed detailed focus on containing and disposing expectorated sputum—for example closing the sputum bottle to prevent it from being aerosolised as it dries [43], asking patients to bring a tin with sand to cough in [28], prefilling the sputum cup with water [49], putting a disinfectant in the sputum cup [46], or requiring separate bins for Tuberculosis waste [56].
We found other examples of TB IPC measures being implemented outside of what is recommended in international guidelines, this is described in Table 3.
Discussion
This meta-synthesis has found that successful TB IPC implementation requires a multifaced approach that acknowledges complexity. Important findings, that we discuss in further depth in the sections that follow, include:
- Health workers tasked with TB IPC implementation operate in a high stress environment where they feel exposed to occupational hazards. Whether they have received TB IPC training, how they view their personal risk of developing occupational TB and whether they feel empowered to influence their workplace safety all contribute to whether they are able to implement TB IPC.
- TB IPC technologies pose difficulties of acceptability (for example that mask wearing may be stigmatising), and usability (for example discomfort associated with opening windows during cold weather). These are compounded by difficulties in procurement (for example of particulate filter respirators) and maintenance (for example of GUV systems).
- There are key gaps both in TB IPC and occupational health policy content and local translation.
- Health workers viewed patients as unsupportive of TB IPC measures, and described forgoing the use of some of the TB IPC tools to prevent stigmatising patients. However, this should be balanced with their ethical obligation to create a safe healthcare environment.
- Health workers and TB IPC researchers have multiple uncertainties, assumptions and misconceptions relating to what constitutes TB IPC as intervention, and what is effective to curb TB transmission. Local TB implementation plans would help health workers navigate how to translate guidelines to their context.
We found that there is a complex interaction between TB IPC training, the risk perceptions of health workers of developing occupational TB, and workplace safety. This may explain why some health workers feel ambivalent or dismissive about TB IPC: where training is not accompanied by adequate resources or broader efforts to improve workplace safety, health workers may feel powerless with relation to influencing their working environment. This links with Nathavitharana’s argument, that TB IPC training should also motivate health workers to view themselves as ‘agents of change’ [59]. Factors related to health workers’ jobs—the high stress environment, health workers feeling unsafe or being a junior member of staff being delegated to work in the TB ward—all contribute to the “cognitive load” that influences TB IPC implementation. This often occurs within a broader context where organisational norms do not support the use of TB IPC. TB IPC implementation strategies that only target health worker knowledge of TB IPC will therefore unlikely be effective. Health workers need support as they try to balance TB IPC implementation with other competing clinical tasks, when negotiating TB IPC with colleagues, and through strategies that promote workplace safety more broadly.
Our data also emphasised the complexity involving TB IPC implementation, partly due to it multiple subcomponents. Yet there is also complexity inherent to the technology (for example the acceptability and usability of Germicidal UV systems) but also as part of broader processes within the health system, such as procurement and maintenance. Adapting work-flows related to infectious patients require collaboration with multiple organisational role players. Many of the research papers in our review reduced the complexity of implementing TB IPC to poor availability of TB IPC resources and infrastructure. While this is an important consideration, implementation guidelines should also consider other contributors to sub-optimal use of TB IPC tools. The NASSS-CAT framework could guide identifying complexities relating to TB IPC with prompts relating to TB as condition, the technologies used for TB IPC, its value proposition, how health workers view TB IPC measures, the organisation in which it is introduced and external context for innovation [60]. For example, when considering particulate filter respirators as technology, the framework prompts considering how the usability of particulate filter respirators could be improved through different respirators designs [61], strengthening supply chain management and whether using respirators disrupts organisational routines.
Our review also demonstrated important gaps in TB IPC and occupational health policy and implementation. This included contradictory guidelines, lack of prioritisation (for example implementation not being funded) and lack of local translation of national or international policy (for example addressing who is driving implementation and how it fits with existing workflows). With occupational health policy, health workers were unsure whether TB is an occupational disease and what an ideal occupational health service for TB should entail. Despite these uncertainties, health workers recommend linking TB IPC with occupational health services, a call consistent with statements by the International Labour Organisation and WHO [62, 63]. Yet this may position TB IPC implementation as a decision made by health workers about their own risk of developing TB. It may occur at the expense of practicing TB IPC as part of patient safety, as Colvin and colleagues noted [64]. In our evidence synthesis, health workers described patients as being ‘uncompliant’ and unsupportive of TB IPC. They did not view patients as important beneficiaries of TB IPC. In its extreme versions, the narratives of the ‘wicked’ and ‘unco-operative’ TB patient and the ‘heroic’ health worker forgoing PPE to provide care, seeks to create a moral distinction between health workers and patients which ultimately impedes TB IPC. Overall, these dilemmas need to be recognised and health workers need support in finding a balance between their concerns about TB IPC leading to stigma, the ethical responsibility to prevent the spread of TB in health facilities and prioritising the health of health workers.
We were struck by the large variation in TB IPC measures that were described, with health worker uncertainties, assumptions and misconceptions leading to less effective TB IPC being prioritised. This was most prominent in the targeting of TB IPC measures at patients known with TB, who are already on treatment and in many cases, no longer infectious [36]. While a TB diagnosis in a patient may be the first trigger health workers to consider IPC, WHO TB IPC guidance from as early as 1999 stated that people with TB symptoms who have not yet been diagnosed and not yet started treatment pose a higher risk of transmission than patients on treatment [65]. Although reiterated in the 2009 and 2019 WHO TB IPC guidance [10], based on our evidence synthesis findings this concept has had limited uptake in many high TB burden countries. A major shift in where TB IPC resources is directed is required–away from TB programmes and towards areas in health facilities in high TB burden settings where “undifferentiated” patients are seen. For example, health workers and administrative staff working in poorly ventilated waiting rooms and emergency care areas may be highly exposed to infectious TB and thus in need of IPC training and resources. We were alarmed that certain groups of health workers (for example housekeeping staff and community health workers) were not prioritised for TB IPC training and protective equipment. Furthermore, the dual applicability of airborne IPC measures to COVID-19 and TB, and potential transmission from asymptomatic patients for both disease warrants consideration of how airborne precautions could be better integrated [66, 67].
Our evidence synthesis described several other ways in which existing resources are being used suboptimally. One example is the emphasis health workers placed on sputum disposal, which is likely based on a theory prominent prior to the 1990s that TB transmission occured through sputum drying up and re-aerosolising [68]. It is now widely accepted that the exclusive mode of TB transmission is through the air, by aerosols being produced by someone infected with TB who coughs, speaks or breathes [68]. TB IPC implementation plans can play an important role is guiding health workers through these contested areas of TB IPC implementation. In Table 4 we suggest how the ten key findings of this review can be used as a starting point for developing context-specific TB IPC implementation plans. This can help direct local TB IPC resources to be most effective at preventing the spread of TB.
Our review findings are distinct from those of two previous reviews of TB IPC implementation as we focussed only on qualitative research, strove to describe complexity and aimed to inform implementation plans. Our inductive approach is different from the two more deductive approaches of the reviews by Tan and colleagues—who used a macro, meso, micro framework [9]—and that of Zwama and colleagues that used a health systems framework to code their data [14]. Our key findings elaborate on the exisiting implementation recommendations in the 2019 WHO TB IPC guidelines [10] that we described in Table 4.
For our understanding of the subject to progress, we belive that TB IPC qualitative research should shift from merely documenting poor TB IPC implementation in different settings, often through lists of barriers and facilitators. Instead, it could explore ways in which common obstacles to IPC are navigated, why some facilities are successful in implementing TB IPC, or how staff respond to interventions to improve TB IPC. There is a need to examine the complex impacts of TB IPC as an intervention. As Brennan describes, ‘An intervention aimed at a particular function will reverberate across the whole system. Innovation is always accompanied by unpredictability and unintended consequences, by positive and negative feedback loops. … It is the task of research to trace and explain such emergent effects’[69]. For example, across different settings, health workers commonly described particulate filter respirators as difficult to wear. Future research should study whether there are differences in acceptability between respirator design, whether acceptability improves over time, under which conditions health workers would be willing to use respirators as part of universal precautions, and how respirators influence their ability to provide care. Finally, few of the qualitative studies to date have used theory or conceptual frameworks to interpret their findings. Linking qualitative findings with existing social science theory would add additional depth to descriptions and interpretations.
A strength of this review is that we brought an interdisciplinary perspective to the topic and focussed on finding pragmatic strategies to support health workers as they try to implement TB IPC. A limitation of this review is that it draws on research that was conducted in low- and middle-income countries, mostly with a high TB burden. The findings may therefore not be relevant to low TB burden, high income settings. We did not include grey literature or abstracts of articles that were not available in English in our review. It is possible that we missed anthropological accounts of health worker TB IPC measures that did not include ‘infection prevention and control’ in the title. Despite this, we believe that drawing on 37 qualitative research papers from different settings strengthened the transferability of the findings of our review.
Conclusion
A common refrain from the qualitative studies reviewed here is that TB IPC is poorly implemented in most high TB burden settings. In order to progress towards solutions that support health workers as they attempt to address this, we need a better understanding of TB IPC as a complex intervention that depends on multiple subcomponents. We need to notice which underlying principles are being contested or misinterpreted (for example where should the bulk of TB IPC efforts be directed). The healthcare settings in which TB IPC is most needed are often poorly resourced, with health workers working under high cognitive load. Health workers need support as they navigate such working environments to try to implement TB IPC as an intervention. Finding ways to adapt TB IPC implementation plans to specific settings can play an important role in providing the support health workers need.
Supporting information
S2 Table. Critical appraisals skills programme scores of included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000292.s004
(DOCX)
References
- 1.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2020 Global Tuberculosis Report. 2020. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240013131
- 2. Nardell EA, Dharmadhikari A. Turning off the spigot: Reducing drug-resistant tuberculosis transmission in resource-limited settings. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010;14:1233–43. pmid:20843413
- 3. Uden L, Barber E, Ford N, Cooke GS. Risk of Tuberculosis Infection and Disease for Health Care Workers: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis 2017;4:1–7. pmid:28875155
- 4. Houghton C, Meskell P, Delaney H, Smalle M, Glenton C, Booth A, et al. Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers’ adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020. pmid:32315451
- 5. van der Westhuizen H-M, Kotze K, Tonkin-Crine S, Gobat N, Greenhalgh T. Face coverings for covid-19: From medical intervention to social practice. BMJ 2020;370:1–6. pmid:32816815
- 6. Tartari E, Hopman J, Allegranzi B, Gao B. Perceived challenges of COVID-19 infection prevention and control preparedness: A multinational survey. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2020:779–81. pmid:32659504
- 7. Hopman J, Allegranzi B, Mehtar S. Managing COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. JAMA 2020;323. pmid:32176764
- 8. Read JM, Green CA, Harrison EM, Docherty AB, Funk S, Harrison J, et al. Hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK’s first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Lancet 2021;6736:4–5. pmid:34391505
- 9. Tan C, Kallon II, Colvin CJ, Grant AD. Barriers and facilitators of tuberculosis infection prevention and control in low- and middle-income countries from the perspective of healthcare workers: A systematic review. PLoS One 2020;15:1–18. pmid:33085717
- 10. World Health Organization. Guidelines on Tuberculosis Infection Prevention and Control, 2019. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550512
- 11. World Health Organization. Handbook for Guideline Development, Chapter 15. Second Edi. 2014. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/145714
- 12. Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Heal 2019;4:e000882. pmid:30775015
- 13. Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: Introduction to the series. Implement Sci 2018;13:1–10. pmid:29384079
- 14. Zwama G, Diaconu K, Voce AS, O’May F, Grant AD, Kielmann K. Health system influences on the implementation of tuberculosis infection prevention and control at health facilities in low-income and middle-income countries: A scoping review. BMJ Glob Heal 2021;6:1–13. pmid:33975887
- 15. Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med 2018;16:95. pmid:29921272
- 16. Glenton C, Lewin S, Lawrie TA, Barreix M, Downe S, Finlayson KW, et al. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3—Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes. Heal Res Policy Syst 2019;17:1–14. pmid:31391071
- 17.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist 2018. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf
- 18. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:1–10. pmid:18616818
- 19.
The World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. 2021. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519
- 20.
World Health Organization. Global Lists of High Burden Countries for Tuberculosis (TB), TB/HIV and multidrug/rifampicin-resistant TB (MDR/RR-TB), 2021–2025. 2021. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341980
- 21. Marme GD. Barriers and facilitators to effective tuberculosis infection control practices in Madang Province, PNG—a qualitative study. Rural Remote Health 2018;18:1–13. pmid:30111158
- 22. Tshitangano TG. Measures practised by healthcare workers to prevent tuberculosis transmission at rural hospitals in Vhembe district. South African J Infect Dis 2014;29:65–9.
- 23. Tshitangano TG. The practices of isolating tuberculosis infectious patients at hospitals of Vhembe district, Limpopo Province. African J Prim Heal Care Fam Med 2014;6:1–7. pmid:26245416
- 24. Tshitangano TG, Maputle SM, Netshikweta LM. Availability of tuberculosis infection control plans at rural hospitals of Vhembe district, Limpopo Province of South Africa. African J Prim Heal Care Fam Med 2013;5:1–5.
- 25. Van der Westhuizen HM, Dramowski A. When students become patients: TB disease among medical undergraduates in Cape Town, South Africa. South African Med J 2017;107:475–9. pmid:28604316
- 26. Padayatchi N, Daftary A, Moodley T, Madansein R, Ramjee A. Case series of the long-term psychosocial impact of drug-resistant tuberculosis in HIV-negative medical doctors. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010;14:960–6. pmid:20626939
- 27. Arjun SD, Matlakala MC, Mavundla TR. Enrolled nurses’ experiences of caring for multi drug resistant tuberculosis patients in the KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa. Afr J Nurs Midwifery 2013;15:54–67.
- 28. Brouwer M, Coelho E, Das Dores Mosse C, Brondi L, Winterton L, Van Leth F. Healthcare workers’ challenges in the implementation of tuberculosis infection prevention and control measures in Mozambique. PLoS One 2014;9:1–12. pmid:25501847
- 29. Chapman HJ, Veras-Estévez BA, Pomeranz JL, Pérez-Then EN, Marcelino B, Lauzardo M. The Role of Powerlessness Among Health Care Workers in Tuberculosis Infection Control. Qual Health Res 2017;27:2116–27. pmid:28962542
- 30. 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. Peer Rev MEDICC Rev 2017;19:16–22. pmid:28225541
- 31. Daftary A, Padayatchi N. Provider perspectives on drug-resistant tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus care in South Africa: A qualitative case study. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2016;20:1483–8. pmid:27776589
- 32. Zinatsa F, Engelbrecht M, Van Rensburg AJ, Kigozi G. Voices from the frontline: Barriers and strategies to improve tuberculosis infection control in primary health care facilities in South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:1–12.
- 33. Cowan JF, Greenberg Cowan J, Barnhart S, Demamu S, Fiseha D, Graham W, et al. A qualitative assessment of challenges to tuberculosis management and prevention in Northern Ethiopia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013;17:1071–5. pmid:23735536
- 34. Probandari A, Sanjoto H, Mahanani MR, Azizatunnisa L, Widayati S. Being safe, feeling safe, and stigmatizing attitude among primary health care staff in providing multidrug-resistant tuberculosis care in Bantul District, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Hum Resour Health 2019;17:1–10. pmid:30606232
- 35. Woith W, Volchenkov G, Larson J. Barriers and motivators affecting tuberculosis infection control practices of Russian health care workers. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012;16:1092–6. pmid:22687261
- 36. Kallon II, Swartz A, Colvin CJ, MacGregor H, Zwama G, Voce AS, et al. Organisational Culture and Mask-Wearing Practices for Tuberculosis Infection Prevention and Control among Health Care Workers in Primary Care Facilities in the Western Cape, South Africa: A Qualitative Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18. pmid:34831888
- 37. Adeleke O. Barriers to the implementation of tuberculosis infection control among South African healthcare workers. South African Heal Rev 2012:197–203.
- 38. Adu PA, Yassi A, Ehrlich R, Spiegel JM. Perceived health system barriers to tuberculosis control among health workers in South Africa. Ann Glob Heal 2020;86:1–10. pmid:32090022
- 39. Bieh KL, Weigel R, Smith H. Hospitalized care for MDR-TB in Port Harcourt, Nigeria: A qualitative study. BMC Infect Dis 2017;17:1–9. pmid:28049444
- 40. Zelnick J, Gibbs A, Loveday M, Padayatchi N, O’Donnell M. Health Care Worker Perspectives on Workplace Safety, Infection Control and Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in a High Burden HIV setting. J Public Heal Policy 2013;34:388–402.
- 41. Matakanye H, Ramathuba DU, Tugli AK. Caring for tuberculosis patients: Understanding the plight of nurses at a regional hospital in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16. pmid:31817829
- 42. Marais F, Kallon II, Dudley LD. Continuity of care for TB patients at a South African hospital: A qualitative participatory study of the experiences of hospital staff. PLoS One 2019;14:1–22. pmid:31532797
- 43. Dodor EA, Kelly SJ. Manifestations of tuberculosis stigma within the healthcare system: The case of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan district in Ghana. Health Policy (New York) 2010;98:195–202. pmid:20637520
- 44. 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 Infect Dis 2013;13:1. pmid:23280237
- 45. Fadare RI, Akpor OA, Ifechukwude IG, Richard D A, Bello CB. Nurses’ Safety in Caring for Tuberculosis Patients at a Teaching Hospital in South West Nigeria. J Environ Public Health 2020;2020. pmid:32612665
- 46. Khaund K, Sudhakar C, Vaz CJ. Infection Control Prevention Practices on Pulmonary TB Transmission among Health Care Personnel of Selected Hospital in India. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2018;12:10–5.
- 47. Kuyinu YA, Goodman OO, Odugbemi BA, Adeyeye OO, Mohammed AS, Odusanya OO. Tuberculosis infection prevention and control measures in DOTS centres in Lagos State, Nigeria. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2019;23:474–81. pmid:31064627
- 48. 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;16:1–11. pmid:26728278
- 49. Akshaya KM, Shewade HD, Aslesh OP, Nagaraja SB, Nirgude AS, Singarajipura A, et al. “Who has to do it at the end of the day? Programme officials or hospital authorities?” Airborne infection control at drug resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) centres of Karnataka, India: A mixed-methods study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017;6:1–10. pmid:29142744
- 50. Sissolak D, Marais F, Mehtar S. TB infection prevention and control experiences of South African nurses—A phenomenological study. BMC Public Health 2011;11:262. pmid:21518434
- 51. Tudor C, Mphahlele M, Van der Walt M, Farley JE. Health care workers’ fears associated with working in multidrug- and or extensively-resistant tuberculosis wards in South Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013;17:22–9. pmid:24020597
- 52. Nazneen A, Tarannum S, Chowdhury KIA, Islam MT, Islam SMH, Ahmed S, et al. Implementation status of national tuberculosis infection control guidelines in Bangladeshi hospitals. PLoS One 2021;16:e0246923. pmid:33592049
- 53. Chapman HJ, Veras-Estévez BA, Pomeranz JL, Pérez-Then EN, Marcelino B, Lauzardo M. Health care workers’ recommendations for strengthening tuberculosis infection control in the Dominican Republic. Pan Am J Public Heal 2018;42:1–9. pmid:31093197
- 54. Kuyinu YA, Mohammed AS, Adeyeye OO, Odugbemi BA, Goodman OO, Odusanya OO. Tuberculosis infection control measures in health care facilities offering tb services in Ikeja local government area, Lagos, South West, Nigeria. BMC Infect Dis 2016;16:1–7. pmid:26729246
- 55. Maroldi MAC, Felix AM da S, Dias AAL, Kawagoe JY, Padoveze MC, Ferreira SA, et al. Adherence to precautions for preventing the transmission of microorganisms in primary health care: A qualitative study. BMC Nurs 2017;16:4–11. pmid:28104998
- 56. Mwenya S, Stapley S. An exploration of health workers risks of contracting tuberculosis in the workplace: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:1–10. pmid:33183290
- 57. Buregyeya E, Mitchell EMH, Rutebemberwa E, Colebunders R, Criel B, Kiguli J, et al. Acceptability of masking and patient separation to control nosocomial Tuberculosis in Uganda: A qualitative study. J Public Heal 2012;20:599–606.
- 58. Shah NS, Auld SC, Brust JCM, Mathema B, Ismail N, Moodley P, et al. Transmission of Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in South Africa. N Engl J Med 2017;376:243–53. pmid:28099825
- 59. Nathavitharana RR, Bond P, Dramowski A, Kotze K, Lederer P, Oxley I, et al. Agents of change: The role of healthcare workers in the prevention of nosocomial and occupational tuberculosis. Press Medicale 2017;46. pmid:28256382
- 60. Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Betton V, et al. The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings. JMIR Res Protoc 2020;9:e16861. pmid:32401224
- 61. Suen LKP, Guo YP, Ho SSK, Au-Yeung CH, Lam SC. Comparing mask fit and usability of traditional and nanofibre N95 filtering facepiece respirators before and after nursing procedures. J Hosp Infect 2020;104:336–43. pmid:31545991
- 62. Garcia R, Spiegel JM, Yassi A, Ehrlich R, Romão P, Nunes EA, et al. Preventing occupational tuberculosis in health workers: An analysis of state responsibilities and worker rights in mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:1–17. pmid:33081345
- 63.
World Health Organization; International Labour Organization. Joint WHO/ ILO policy guidelines on improving health worker access to prevention, treatment and care services for HIV and TB. 2010. [cited 2021 Dec 26] https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44467
- 64. Colvin CJ, Kallon II, Swartz A, MacGregor H, Kielmann K, Grant AD. ‘It has become everybody’s business and nobody’s business’: Policy actor perspectives on the implementation of TB infection prevention and control (IPC) policies in South African public sector primary care health facilities. Glob Public Health 2020;0:1–14. pmid:33161838
- 65.
World Health Organisation. Guidelines for the prevention of tuberculosis in health care facilities in resource-limited settings. 1999.
- 66. Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, Seilmaier M, Zange S, Müller MA, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature 2020. pmid:32235945
- 67. Dinkele R, Gessner S, McKerry A, Leonard B, Leukes J, Seldon R, et al. Aerosolization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by Tidal Breathing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022. pmid:35584342
- 68. Randall K, Ewing ET, Marr LC, Jimenez JL, Bourouiba L. How did we get here: what are droplets and aerosols and how far do they go? Interface Focus 2021;11:1–17. pmid:34956601
- 69. Brennan C, Greenhalgh J, Pawson R. Guidance on guidelines: Understanding the evidence on the uptake of health care guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24:105–16. pmid:28370699