If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

Free Content Integrating tuberculosis and HIV services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

You have access to the full text article on a website external to ingentaconnect.

Please click here to view this article on Wiley Online Library.

You may be required to register and activate access on Wiley Online Library before you can obtain the full text. If you have any queries please visit Wiley Online Library

Download Article:

Abstract:

Abstract
Objectives

Given the imperative to scale up integrated tuberculosis (TB) and HIV services in settings where both are of major public health importance, we aimed to synthesise knowledge concerning implementation of TB/HIV service integration.
Methods

Systematic review of studies describing a strategy to facilitate TB and HIV service integration, searching 15 bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library; and relevant conference abstracts.
Results

Sixty‐three of 1936 peer‐reviewed articles and 70 of 170 abstracts met our inclusion criteria. We identified five models: entry via TB service, with referral for HIV testing and care; entry via TB service, on‐site HIV testing, and referral for HIV care; entry via HIV service with referral for TB screening and treatment; entry via HIV service, on‐site TB screening, and referral for TB diagnosis and treatment; and TB and HIV services provided at a single facility. Referral‐based models are most easily implemented, but referral failure is a key risk. Closer integration requires more staff training and additional infrastructure (e.g. private space for HIV counselling; integrated records). Infection control is a major concern. More integrated models hold potential efficiencies from both provider and user perspective. Most papers report ‘outcomes’ (e.g. proportion of TB patients tested for HIV); few report downstream ‘impacts’ such as outcomes of TB treatment or antiretroviral therapy. Very few studies address the perspectives of service users or staff, or costs or cost‐effectiveness.
Conclusions

While scaling up integrated services, robust comparisons of the impacts of different models are needed using standardised outcome measures.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12029

Publication date: February 1, 2013

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more