Open Access

Factors associated with tuberculosis cases in Semarang District, Indonesia: case–control study performed in the area where case detection rate was extremely low

  • Sri Ratna Rahayu1,
  • Hironobu Katsuyama2,
  • Masashi Demura1,
  • Midori Katsuyama1,
  • Yoko Ota1,
  • Hideji Tanii1,
  • Tomomi Higashi1,
  • Ngakan Putu Djaja Semadi3 and
  • Kiyofumi Saijoh1Email author
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine201520:443

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-015-0443-9

Received: 19 November 2014

Accepted: 9 December 2014

Published: 16 April 2015

Abstract

Objectives

Indonesia is ranked as the 4th highest contributor to tuberculosis (TB) in the world. Semarang District in Central Java displays extremely low case detection rate (CDR), possibly contributing to the local prevalence of TB.

Methods

A case–control study was performed to explore the factors that cause such low CDR. We recruited 129 TB cases and 83 controls that visited the same centers and were not diagnosed with TB.

Results

The cases had 7.5 ± 2.3 symptoms/person on average, indicating the delay in diagnosis because the controls only displayed 1.0 ± 1.7. The multiple logistic regression analysis comparing the cases/controls extracted following factors as a risk to have TB: farmer, close contact with TB patients, ignorance of whether Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) was accepted or no, smoking, low income, a lot of people living in the same room, irregular hand wash before meals, not wash hands after blow, soil floor, and no sunlight and no ventilation in the house.

Conclusions

Neither the cases nor the controls knew the symptoms and how to avoid TB infection, which probably caused the delay in diagnosis. It is difficult to change the current living conditions. Thus, the amendment of the community-based education program of TB seems to be required.

Keywords

TuberculosisCase detection rateRisk factorsIndonesiaDOTS

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the biggest problems throughout the world and a leading cause of death and major public health problem [1]. Many people with TB remain poorly diagnosed or are diagnosed only after long delays. The high burden of undiagnosed TB causes much suffering such as economic hardship and sustained transmission [24].

According to Global Tuberculosis Report 2012 [5], Indonesia is ranked as the 4th (0.4–0.5 million) highest contributor to the TB world after India (2.0–2.5 million), China (0.9–1.1 million), and South Africa (0.4–0.6 million). Since 2000, 22 high burden countries account for 82 % of all estimated incident cases [5].

The diagnosis of TB in Indonesia in 2011 is 807 per 100,000 population and that in Central Java 637 per 100,000 population [6]. The TB case detection rate (CDR) of Central Java Province is estimated to be 56.93 % [7], but among its local districts Semarang displays an extremely low CDR, 19.21 % [8]. National target for TB control strategy in Indonesia, according to the strategic plan of the Ministry of Health from 2010 to 2014, is to reduce the TB prevalence to 224 per 100,000 population. Output targets are to (1) increase the CDR of new cases of smear-positive pulmonary TB from 73 to 90 %, (2) reach successful treatment of new cases of smear-positive pulmonary TB to 88 %, (3) increase “the percentage of province with CDR above 70 %” to 50 %, and (4) increase “the percentage of the province with treatment success rate above 85 %” from 80 to 88 % [9].

To achieve the national targets for controlling TB, some strategies seem to be very important: empowerment in the community; early detection and registration of TB patients; improvement of the quality of directly observed treatment short course (DOTS) services; facing the challenges of TB/HIV, multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB) and childhood TB; meet the demands of poor and other vulnerable groups in the society [9]. Domain knowledge is very important in the formation of action. In several developing countries, TB patients are perceived to seek late care or avoid care, due to misunderstanding of popular TB etiologies such as sharing utensils, heavy labor, smoking, bewitchment, and hereditary transmission [1012]. Thus, it seems very important to know the basic knowledge, attitude, and behavior of the people in such a low CDR region to implement TB programs.

In the present study, differences in the basic knowledge, attitude, and behavior were compared among the TB cases registered in 2012 at the health centers in Semarang District and the controls that visited the same health centers and were diagnosed differently.

Methods

This study was designed to be a case–control study [13] from 2012 January to 2013 October. TB cases (129) were recruited from the cases registered as TB diagnosis at the health centers in Semarang District and 50 % were female. The controls (83) were recruited among those who visited the same health centers and were diagnosed differently, and 52 % were female. The average age of the cases and controls (Mean ± SD) was 41.2 ± 15.3 and 35.7 ± 11.7, respectively. This research was approved by the ethical committees of Kanazawa University School of Medicine, Japan, and Diponegoro University School of Medicine, Dr Kariadi Hospital Semarang, Indonesia, and Semarang State University, Indonesia. All participants approved this research and gave written informed consent.

TB information of the cases

TB cases were sent to the health center from clinics and diagnosed to have TB using physical examination, microscopic examination by Ziehl Neelsen staining, X-ray, etc.

The method of diagnosis, symptoms, and treatment methods were examined. All of them were treated with DOTS properly regardless of having side effects.

Characteristics of the cases and controls

Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, occupation, origin, BCG experience, close contact with TB patients, smoking habit, having pets, and income were examined. The source of TB information (multiple answers) was also examined. Thereafter, differences in living condition and attitudes in daily life were examined.

Knowledge and opinion about TB

The participants were questioned about the symptoms of TB (multiple answers) and the ways to avoid it (multiple answers). Differences in the opinion and attitude against TB between the cases and controls were examined.

Statistical analysis

The difference in the age and numbers of complaint of the cases and controls was estimated using Student’s t test. The differences in the frequency of answers between the cases and the controls were estimated by Chi square (χ 2) test (monovariate analysis, MA). Multiple logistic regression analysis (MLR) with the cases/controls as the dependent variable was utilized with the independent variables using groups classified by characteristics of the cases and controls. All analyses were performed with SPSS ver. 19 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NY). In all analyses, ρ < 0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance.

Results

The 129 cases included 65 males and 64 females, respectively, and the average age was 41.2 ± 15.3 (Table 1). Although all the cases were registered at the health centers, around 20 % were diagnosed at the different medical facilities (Table 2). Sputum smear was the first choice for diagnosis [1, 14], but 20 cases were diagnosed without any clinical examination. Chest X-ray was utilized for the diagnosis of more than half of the cases. Long-lasting cough with sputum was the most common symptom that was followed by chest pain, malaise, anorexia, and weight loss. Around two-thirds displayed hemoptysis, dyspnea, sweat at night, and long-lasting subfever at night. The cases had many symptoms, 7.5 ± 2.3 complaints/person on average. These cases were registered; hence, all of them underwent treatment, whether they knew it was under DOTS or not (Table 3). Nine had no supervisors and at least one-fourth had to pay treatment fee, suggesting that they were not under DOTS. More than 85 % of the cases quit taking medicine at 6 months, regardless of the frequency of medication in the first 2 months. Treatment with 4 drugs was most common, but that with 2 drugs was also observed in around 15 % of the cases. Sputum smear was the most common examination during treatment followed by chest X-ray.
Table 1

Demographic characteristics of the cases and control

 

Cases

Controls

 

Cases

Controls

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Total

129

 

83

 

Smoking

Gender

 No

41

32

34

41

 Male

65

50

40

48

 No, but family smokes

45

35

28

34

 Female

64

50

43

52

 Yes

44

34

21

25

Occupationa

Pet

 Farmer

101

78

31

37

 Yes

67

52

34

41

 Others

28

22

52

63

 No

62

48

49

59

Educationa

Incomea

 Elementary school

38

29

8

10

 <100

96

74

38

46

 Jr high school

59

46

32

39

 100–150

19

15

31

37

 High school or higher

32

25

43

52

 >150

14

11

14

17

Origin

 

 Rural

106

82

70

84

Source of TB information (multiple answers)

 Urban

23

18

13

16

 Broadcastb

74

57

64

77

Have you ever had BCG?a

 Billboardsb

10

8

20

24

 Yes

33

26

46

55

 Newspaperb

18

14

23

28

 No

30

23

21

25

 Medicalb

89

69

37

45

 Do not know

66

51

16

19

 Acquaintanceb

9

7

24

29

Close contact with TB patientsa

 Teacherb

6

5

25

30

 Yes

18

9

0

0

 

 No

111

86

83

100

 

Average age of the case and control (Mean ± SD) was 41.2 ± 15.3 and 35.7 ± 11.7, respectively, and the difference was significant (ρ < 0.05, Students’ t test)

aSignificant difference in the rate of answers between the case and the control (ρ < 0.05, χ 2 test)

bFor multiple answer questions, the difference in the rate of each source was examined using χ 2 test. The case and control displayed significant differences in all sources (ρ < 0.05)

Table 2

The diagnosis method and symptoms

 

N

%

Location of diagnosis

 Health center

101

78

 Private clinic

16

13

 Others

12

9

Way of diagnosis

 No clinical examination

20

16

 Smear alone

39

30

 Smear, X-ray

70

54

Symptoms (multiple answers)

 Cough with sputum

125

97

 Cough >2w

123

95

 Hemoptysis

78

60

 Dyspnea

86

67

 Chest pain

102

79

 Malaise

108

84

 Anorexia

108

84

 Weight loss

101

78

 Sweat at night

77

60

 Subfever >1 Mo

72

56

Mantoux test was utilized only in 2 cases. The mean ± SD of complaints/person was 7.5 ± 2.3, whereas that of the controls only 1.0 ± 1.7 (ρ < 0.05, Students’ t test)

Table 3

Information related to treatments of the cases

 

N

%

Was treatment made under DOTS?

 Yes

80

62

 No

14

11

 Do not know

35

27

Who was the supervisor?a

 Family

86

67

 Medical Service

67

52

 None

9

7

Was treatment free of charge?

 Yes

80

62

 No

33

26

 Do not know

16

12

How long was the duration of treatment?

 <6 Mo

7

5

 6 Mo

112

87

 > 6 Mo

10

8

How frequent do you take medication within the first 2 Mo?

 Everyday

80

62

 1x/week

35

27

 Longer

14

11

How many kinds of drugs did you take?

 2

19

15

 3

34

26

 4

70

54

 5

6

5

Did you suffer from side effects?

 +

70

54

Which examinations were utilized during treatment?b

 Sputum smear

104

81

 Chest X-ray

79

61

 Sputum culture

11

8.5

 Mantoux test

11

8.5

Distance to the health center

 ≤5 min

85

66

 ≤30 min

21

16

 Longer

26

18

a35 cases were supervised both by family and medical staff

b76 cases were subjected to more than two examinations

The controls were selected from people who visited the same health center and diagnosed as not having TB. We tried to obtain age- and gender-matched controls. We could achieve gender-matched controls, but their age was slightly lower than the cases (Table 1). Around 80 % of the cases were farmers and around 30 % of them had graduated from elementary school alone. More than half of the controls had received BCG, whereas more than half of the cases did not know whether they received BCG or not. Nine percent of the cases experienced close contact with TB patients, but none of the controls did. The income of the cases was significantly lower than that of the controls, and three-fourths of them got less than 100 $/month. The cases had already been diagnosed, and hence they obtained more TB information from the medical staff than the controls, but they usually did not use other sources (Table 1). When the living conditions were compared, all conditions were significantly different between the cases and the controls (Table 4). “Ceramic floor”, “outside kitchen”, “gas for cooking”, “open windows every day”, “sunlight into the house”, and “ventilation in every room” were more common in the controls, whereas “window in each room” and high “humidity in the house” were common in the cases.
Table 4

Comparison of living conditions of the participants

 

Cases

Controls

N

%

N

%

Number of persons in the same rooma

 1

15

12

10

12

 2

84

65

72

87

 >3

30

23

1

1

House floora

 Soil

35

27

2

2

 Plaster

49

38

18

22

 Ceramics

45

35

63

76

Location of kitchena

 Outside

51

40

60

72

 Inside

78

60

23

28

Fuel for cookinga

 Cordwood

52

40

8

10

 Gas

77

60

75

90

Window in each rooma

 Yes

52

40

8

10

 No

77

60

75

90

Open windows every daya

 Yes

43

33

60

72

 No

86

67

23

28

Sunlight into the housea

 Yes

66

51

76

92

 No

63

49

7

8

Ventilation in every rooma

 Yes

50

39

75

90

 No

79

61

8

10

Humidity in the housea

 Humid

84

65

17

20

 Not humid

45

35

66

80

aSignificant difference between the cases and the controls (ρ < 0.05, χ 2 test)

The cases less frequently “washed their hands before eating”, but more frequently “shared their dishes with others” and “drunk from the same glasses/bottles” than the controls (Table 5). They also less frequently “washed their hands after nose blowing” than the controls, whereas no difference was observed in the frequency of whether “they worked when they felt unwell” between these two groups.
Table 5

The differences in attitudes between the participants

 

Cases

Control

N

%

N

%

Do you wash your hands before eating?a

 Yes

45

35

63

76

 Sometimes

72

56

18

22

 No

12

9

2

2

Do you eat from the same dish with others?a

 Yes

11

9

8

10

 Sometimes

86

67

28

33

 No

32

25

47

57

Do you drink from the same glasses/bottles with others?a

 Yes

7

5

9

11

 Sometimes

92

71

35

42

 No

30

23

39

47

Do you wash your hands after blowing nose?a

 Yes

25

19

40

48

 Sometimes

69

53

32

39

 No

35

27

11

13

Do you work when you are unwell?

 Yes

23

18

25

30

 Sometimes

78

60

40

48

 No

28

22

18

22

aSignificant difference between the cases and the controls (ρ < 0.05, χ 2 test)

To clarify what kinds of physical factors were the most affected differences in the cases and the controls, the MLR was applied (Table 6). The cases/controls were the dependent variables and the groups divided by the above-mentioned information were used as determinants. The method of obtaining TB information was removed from the determinant, because that from the cases was modified as described above. The obtained risks were “farmers”, “close contact with TB patients”, “whether or not they did not know they received BCG”, “smoking”, and “low income "100 $/month”. “High income "150 $/month” was also extracted as a risk compared with “middle income 100–150 $/month”. To “wash hands before eating”, “wash hands after nose blowing” and “not work when unwell” were protective. Among living conditions, “live with more than 3 person in the same room”, “soil floor”; no “sunlight in the house” and no “ventilation in the house” were extracted as risk.
Table 6

Multiple logistic regression analysis using case/control as the dependent valuable and living status as determinants

 

Comparison

Reference

Odds

P

95 % CI

Occupation

Workers

Farmers

0.05

<0.01

0.00

0.20

Others

Farmers

0.05

0.01

0.00

0.54

Close contact with TB patients

No

Yes

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.49

BCG

Yes

Do not know

0.04

<0.01

0.00

0.32

Smoking

No

Yes

0.14

0.04

0.01

0.92

Income ($/Mo)

100–150

<100

0.05

<0.01

0.00

0.33

100–150

>150

0.08

0.04

0.01

0.89

Person/room

1

≥3

0.00

<0.01

0.00

0.35

2

≥3

0.00

<0.01

0.00

0.27

Wash hands before eating

Yes

Sometimes

0.06

<0.01

0.01

0.32

Wash hands after blowing nose

Sometimes

No

0.06

0.01

0.01

0.46

Work when unwell

No

Yes

0.09

0.02

0.00

0.66

Floor

Ceramics

Soil

0.06

0.04

0.00

0.90

Sunlight in the house

Yes

No

0.06

0.02

0.00

0.67

Ventilation in the house

Yes

No

0.02

<0.01

0.00

0.24

Source of TB information (multiple answers) was excluded because this information was modified by consultation of the cases to the health center. Among determinants, age class, gender, education, pet, sharing the dishes, drinking from the same bottle/glass, location of kitchen, fuel for cooking, opening the window every day, and humidity in the house were not selected

Regardless of many symptoms, the cases did not always display significant differences with the controls regarding what they thought were TB symptoms (Fig. 1). “Long-lasting subfever” alone was significantly greater in the controls.
Fig. 1

Differences in the knowledge about TB symptoms between the cases and controls (multiple answers). Asterisk significant differences (ρ < 0.05, χ 2 test and Student’s t test)

More than 70 % of both the cases and the controls thought that it was important to “cover mouth/nose when someone sneezed” (Fig. 2). More than half of the controls thought that “avoiding sharing dishes”, “avoiding drinking from the same glass/bottle”, “washing hands after touching items in the public” and “maintaining good nutrition” were the ways to avoid getting TB and the rates were significantly higher than the cases. In fact, 76 % of the controls washed hands before eating and only 35 % of the cases did so (Table 5). Moreover, 76 % (9 + 67) of the cases at least sometimes “shared their dishes” and “drank from the same glass”, which was significantly higher than the controls. On the other hand, 87 % (39 + 48) of the controls at least sometimes “washed hands after blowing nose”. “Vaccination” was also higher in the controls than in the cases (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Differences in the way that the cases and controls thought was good to avoid getting TB. Asterisk significant differences (ρ < 0.05, χ 2 test)

Opinions related to the seriousness and shame did not display any significant difference between the cases and the controls (Table 7). Although many of the cases and controls thought TB to be “serious”, they did not always think that TB was “serious at workplaces” and “affected work performance”. Significant difference was not observed in “being ashamed of having TB”, but the cases tended to want to “hide having TB”. Significantly more controls thought “TB affected relationship with others” and “wanted to be isolated”, whereas there was no significant difference in “TB affecting family responsibility” against the controls. Both of the cases and controls usually tried to be good to TB patients. Around 50 % of the controls believed that “TB treatment was very costly”, but around one-fourth of the cases did not think so. “HIV-positive people’s concern about TB” was significantly higher in the controls than in the cases. Around one-fourth to one-third of the cases and controls believed that TB was hereditary.
Table 7

Differences in the opinion against TB between the cases and controls

 

Cases

Controls

N

%

N

%

Do you think that TB is serious?

 Yes

91

71

67

81

 No

2

2

3

4

 Do not know

36

28

15

18

Do you think that TB is serious at workplaces?

 Yes

46

36

34

41

 No

14

11

10

12

 Do not know

69

53

39

47

Does TB affect your work performance?

 Yes

51

40

43

52

 Not always

60

47

29

35

 No

18

14

11

13

Do you feel ashamed of having TB?

 Yes

49

38

22

27

 No

53

41

35

42

 Do not know

27

21

26

31

Do you want to hide having TB?a

 Yes

14

11

10

12

 Not always

74

57

30

36

 No

41

32

43

52

Does TB affect your relationship with others?a

 Yes

20

16

36

44

 Not always

72

56

35

42

 No

37

29

12

14

Does TB affect family responsibilities?

 Yes

58

45

41

49

 Not always

53

41

35

42

 No

18

14

7

8

Do you want to live isolated due to having TB?a

 Yes

5

4

12

14

 Not always

43

33

25

30

 No

81

63

46

55

How do you feel about a person with TB?

 Desire to help

94

73

59

71

 Want to stay away

28

22

20

24

 No particular feeling

7

5

4

5

Is TB treatment very costly?a

 Yes

32

25

42

51

 Not always

44

34

21

25

 No

53

41

20

24

Do you think that HIV-positive people should be concerned about TB?a

 Yes

23

18

39

47

 Not always

79

61

30

36

 No

27

21

14

17

Do you think that TB is hereditary

 Yes

30

23

24

29

 No

79

61

47

57

 Do not know

20

16

12

14

aSignificant difference between the cases and the controls (ρ < 0.05, χ 2 test)

Discussion

In Indonesia, regular health examination is not mandatory [6]. Therefore, after symptoms became apparent, the person visited the clinic where sputum smear was not always available. The cases in the present study displayed 7.5 ± 2.3 complaints/person on average, indicating the delay of diagnosis [15]. Although early diagnosis and initiation of treatment of infectious cases are the best measures to reduce transmission [3, 16, 17], in some countries 20 % of patients were not diagnosed for over 6 months from the onset of symptoms [18]. Even after the symptoms became obvious, it took at least 2 more days for diagnosis, because positive TB was defined as more than 2 positive sputum smears in the smear performed three times within 2 days [14]. Household contacts continued meantime, when patients were with potentially infectious forms proceeding to high prevalence of TB [19, 20]. On the other hand, culture was not common, whereas patients with smear-negative, culture-positive TB were reportedly responsible for TB transmission [21, 22]. Immediate introduction of culture examination is required because, in addition to high sensitivity, it allows determining whether the patient is sensitive to anti-TB drugs and useful for finding extrapulmonary TB [14].

The cases did not always know whether they were under DOTS treatment or not, but all the cases could luckily quit taking medicine regardless of the obvious delay of diagnosis. Around 80 % of the cases were farmers and around 30 % had graduated from elementary school alone; hence, their income was lower than the controls. Low income and low education are reportedly associated with TB infection [4, 2325]. They also had lost the chance of BCG injection. This occupation was also extracted as a risk by the MLR. However, the MLR extracted high income as a risk as well. Such a result is not always in accordance with several studies [4, 2325], whereas it is conceivable that people with high income, regardless of their occupation, have more chances to live and/or work at places with a lot of people where a risk of TB transmission is supposed to be high. The number was small, but only cases had a chance of close contact with TB patients. TB contact was absolutely a risk factor for TB transmission [18, 26]. No significant difference was found in the rate of “smoking” by the MA, but the MLR extracted “smoking” as a risk. This is in good accordance with a previous report [23]. It is natural that the “source of TB information” of cases was medical staff, but the cases were not always eager to collect information from other sources compared with the controls. All the items related to living condition were significantly different between the cases and the controls according to the MA. Among them, the MRL extracted “small number of persons in a room”, “ceramic floor”, “sunlight in the house”, and “ventilation in the house” as protective. The importance of good ventilation has been emphasized elsewhere [3, 23]. Excluding “work when unwell”, their attitudes displayed significant differences between the cases and the controls by the MA. “Share the dish” and “drink from the same glasses/bottles” were not extracted by the MLR. Instead, “work when unwell” was extracted as well as “wash hands before eating” and “wash hands after nose blowing”. These findings may be a reflection that TB is airborne. In general, the cases were not aware of the danger in their attitudes, which was in good accordance with previous reports [1012].

Both the cases and the controls did not recognize “dyspnea” and “chest pain” as TB symptoms. Significant differences existed, but “long-lasting subfever” was also not considered as TB symptoms. “dyspnea”, “chest pain,” and “long-lasting subfever” were less frequent than “cough with sputum”, “malaise”, and so on, but a number of cases complained of these. Thus, it seems necessary make people aware of TB symptoms [1012].

TB itself was recognized to be dangerous both by the cases and the controls, but they did not recognize its dangerousness at work places. Many of the cases were farmers; hence, it seems less possible to spread TB than workers. However, TB-positive workers can work and be able to transmit TB to their colleagues. On comparing the rate of both the cases and controls who thought “having TB was a shame”, the rate of “wanted to hide having TB” was less. It seems natural that more controls who did not receive TB treatment believed that TB “affected relationship with others” and wanted to “live isolated in case of TB” than the cases. DOTS performed under the governmental hospitals and health centers were free [9], but some cases visiting private hospitals/clinics had to pay the treatment fee. A higher rate of “HIV-positive people should be concerned about TB” in the control was reflection that they were more eager to collect information than the cases. HIV infection reportedly affected TB infection [27]. However, the number who believed “TB was hereditary” was not different between the two groups.

Some aspects underlying the low coverage CDR are socioeconomic, education/knowledge, and stigma problems [4]. Economic conditions will affect the public in obtaining not only good environmental home conditions, but also an excellent level of education. The level of education in this study was relatively low because many people only finished elementary school where sufficient TB education was impossible. Poor education will cause shortage of knowledge about TB, leading the public into embarrassment and sometimes attitude to hide their disease if they are exposed to TB. Such conditions in some people may cause delay in going to health service [18]. As a result, TB has spread among farmers even when their contact has not always been intense like workers. It is very difficult to change occupation, income, and housing conditions immediately. Thus, community-based TB education is very important. It may be useful to educate and expose not only public, but also private practitioners to community-based TB programs [9, 28].

Some cases were not dependent on the free DOTS program. To inform about the existence of this program is also good education. Utilization of this program not only reduces multidrug-resistant TB, but also helps reduce out-of-pocket expenses to patients [27]. The number of syndromes of the cases absolutely indicates the delay in diagnosis.

The classic symptoms of TB are fever, cough, and weight loss, but they are non-specific and can be mimicked by other conditions, including malignancy and other pulmonary infections. That is, in an early stage, such syndromes are not always specific to TB. However, importance of these classic lung related with syndromes should be aware of that they are possible signs of initiation of TB expansion [29].

Abbreviations

BCG: 

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin

CDR: 

Case detection rate

CI: 

Confidence interval

DOTS: 

Directly observed treatment short course

HIV: 

Human immunodeficiency virus

MA: 

Monovariate analysis

MDR: 

Multidrug resistant

MLR: 

Multiple logistic regression analysis

TB: 

Tuberculosis

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to Semarang State University, Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE or DIKTI), and Health Department Semarang District for all their support.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Kanazawa University School of Medicine
(2)
Department of Public Health, Kawasaki Medical University
(3)
Health Department Semarang District

References

  1. WHO. Systematic Screening for active TB. WHO, Geneva 27 Switzerland, 2013.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer M, Leavens A, Schwartzman K. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of tuberculosis on health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2213–35.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Saxena S, Karkhanis V, Joshi JM. Tuberculosis prevention: an enigma worth unravelling. Indian J Tuberc. 2012;59:65–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Wu J, Dalal K. Tuberculosis in Asia and the pacific: the role of socioeconomic status and health system development. Int J Prev Med. 2012;3:8–16.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. WHO. Global Tuberculosis Report 2012. WHO, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211–Geneva–27, Switzerland, 2012:11.Google Scholar
  6. Ministry of Health, R.I. Current Report of Development of Tuberculosis in Indonesia January–December 2012. Ministry of Health Republic Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Ministry of Health, R.o.I. Profile of Health Data of Indonesia in 2011. Ministry of Health of The Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia. 2012.Google Scholar
  8. Health Department, S.D. Reported TB Cases in Semarang District, 2011. Semarang District, Central Java, Indonesia. 2011.Google Scholar
  9. Ministry of Health, R.O.I, Directorate General of Disease Control and Environmental Health National. Strategy for Controlling TB in Indonesia 2010–2014. Republic of Indonesia Health Ministry Directorate General of Disease Control and Environmental Health, Jakarta, 2011.Google Scholar
  10. Notoatmodjo S. Health promotion and behavioral sciences. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta; 2007.Google Scholar
  11. Tasnim S, Rahman A, Hoque FM. Patient’s Knowledge and Attitude towards Tuberculosis in an Urban Setting. Pulm Med. 2012;2012:352850.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Buregyeya E, et al. Tuberculosis knowledge, attitudes and health-seeking behaviour in rural Uganda. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011;15:938–42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Raj S. Bhopal, A.B.a.J.U.P.o.P.H., et al. Concepts of Epidemiology, an itegrated introduction to the ideas, theories, principles and methods of epidemiology. 2002, US, New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  14. Health Minister of The Republic of Indonesia, N.M.S.V. Tuberculosis Control Guidelines. Health Minister of The Republic of Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia, 2009.Google Scholar
  15. Ahmad RA, et al. Diagnostic delay amongst tuberculosis patients in Jogjakarta Province, Indonesia is related to the quality of services in DOTS facilities. Trop Med Int Health. 2011;16:412–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Dye C. Tuberculosis 2000-2010: control, but not elimination. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000;4:S146–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Reid MJ, Shah NS. Approaches to tuberculosis screening and diagnosis in people with HIV in resource-limited settings. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009;9:173–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Yang YR, et al. Evaluation of the tuberculosis programme in Ningxia Hui Autonomous region, the People’s Republic of China: a retrospective case study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1110.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Batra S, et al. Childhood tuberculosis in household contacts of newly diagnosed TB patients. PLoS One. 2012;7:e40880.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Jensen, P.A., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), and National Center for HIV STD and TB Prevention (US), Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR recommendations and reports. 2005, Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. p 141.Google Scholar
  21. Kanaya AM, Glidden DV, Chambers HF. Identifying pulmonary tuberculosis in patients with negative sputum smear results. Chest. 2001;120:349–55.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarmiento OL, et al. Assessment by meta-analysis of PCR for diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:3233–40.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Oxlade O, Murray M. Tuberculosis and poverty: why are the poor at greater risk in India? PLoS One. 2012;7:e47533.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Shen X, et al. Tuberculosis in an urban area in China: differences between urban migrants and local residents. PLoS One. 2012;7:e51133.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Clark M, Riben P, Nowgesic E. The association of housing density, isolation and tuberculosis in Canadian First Nations communities. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:940–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Sacchi FPC, et al. Sugar cane manufacturing is associated with tuberculosis in an indigenous population in Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2013;107:152–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Ismail I, Bulgiba A. Determinants of unsuccessful tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Malaysian HIV-infected patients. Prev Med. 2013;57:S27–30.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Artawan Eka Putra IW, et al. Factors associated to referral of tuberculosis suspects by private practitioners to community health centres in Bali Province, Indonesia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:445.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Davies PDO, Barnes PF, Gordon SB. Clinical tuberculosis. 4th ed. London: Hodder Arnold; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Japanese Society for Hygiene 2015

Advertisement