Discussion
This paper describes the pragmatic and operational research implementation of a multidimensional TB screening and referral intervention among private pharmacies in Patna, India. The study’s strengths are rooted in its mixed methods approach, which allowed us to quantify the intervention’s effect on TB case detection, and explain pathways by which it was acceptable (or challenging) to pharmacy providers.
The idea of engaging pharmacies in the TB care cascade is not new. They have helped to dispense TB treatment or deliver adherence support.31–33 A few interventions have attempted to improve pharmacy referral of symptomatic patients to the national TB programme or in some cases to private doctors engaged in PPM programmes. Participation, however, has been low, with only 30%–40% of pharmacy providers referring symptomatic patients for TB screening and testing.20 34–38 In our study, participation (81%) and referral completion (86%–96%) were very high. Our participatory approach may have helped, including early programme stakeholder consultations and regular participant feedback sessions. Additionally, in previous models, pharmacy referrals have required patients to visit doctors or direct observation of treatment (DOT) centres before undergoing TB testing. Informed by our work with private providers in the region,14 39–41 we directly connected patients to laboratories before visiting a doctor. This led to a 64-fold higher rate of referral of symptomatic patients, and a 25-fold higher rate of TB diagnosis. FGDs also revealed that providers were especially motivated to refer patients for a screening test, over and above their baseline ability to refer patients to a doctor. However, documentation was a barrier to participation. Reports of undocumented verbal referrals suggest providers may have made a higher number of referrals than captured. Study forms were developed in consultation with pharmacies involved in the situation analysis, during which time simple mobile apps or barcodes were considered unfeasible because most providers did not use smartphones or computers. Greater efforts to simplify monitoring and evaluation processes could improve participation of busy providers. Wider use of smartphones may also afford innovative mechanisms.
Although higher in the intervention group, the rate of TB diagnosis in patients who were directly referred to a doctor was generally quite high when compared with those who first underwent a CXR. Qualitative data explain that pharmacy providers immediately referred patients who they considered to be very ill to a doctor, regardless of the intervention or CXR eligibility. Microbiological confirmation among intervention group patients was also higher than in the control group. Having symptomatic patients undergo a screening test before a doctor visit may thus be an effective mechanism to improve microbiological test referrals and promote higher quality diagnostic care.
The intervention’s impact on time to TB diagnosis was unclear. Patient delay,2 or time from symptom onset to first contact with a health provider, was not captured in the control group. It was slightly longer in the intervention group (median 20 days) compared with that found in a national systematic review (18 days)2 and Patna-based patient pathways study (15 days).12 This may be because traditional pathways studies rely on patient reports of symptom duration, whereas we relied on pharmacy provider reports, where many would have dispensed antibiotics before registering patients. Health system delay, or time from first provider contact to treatment initiation, was longer in the intervention compared with control group (5 vs 1 day). This may be attributed to the additional time taken to undergo diagnostic tests by intervention group patients, given that the proportion of CXR and microbiological tests was all significantly higher than in the control group. By contrast, clinical diagnoses (ie, diagnoses based on clinical assessment with no other testing) were significantly higher in the control group.
Incentives can promote behaviour change. In previous studies, pharmacy providers have been compensated US$0.80–1 per TB notification and $5 to transfer privately managed patients to the public sector.20 36 Visits to doctor offices and DOT centres have also been arranged to build accountability and appeal to pharmacy providers’ professional mindset.38 During the situation analysis, monetary incentives were deemed necessary for pharmacy participation. However, FGDs revealed that many providers were motivated by reputational gains and a genuine readiness to connect sick patients to medical care. This was especially relevant for providers working with poorer populations, as compared with those working with affluent clients in more developed, urban areas. Nonetheless, FGDs also revealed that patient demand for OTC medicines, and concerns of attrition, thwarted best practices in OTC drug dispensing.
An additional 240 cases of TB were detected due to the intervention, costing US$100 per case detected above the costs of the baseline PPIA programme. Models of active case finding for TB in India conclude that interventions costing up to US$1000 per case detected may be considered cost-effective.42 While we did not undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, our model may be a fiscally feasible strategy.
The study had several limitations. We were unable to capture numbers of symptomatic patients who presented at pharmacies during the intervention and control periods; only patients who were registered and referred were recorded. It was difficult to gauge the intervention’s impact on timing or volume of OTC drug sales, as these records were unavailable. Qualitative data suggest that only some providers may have replaced the offer of an OTC drug with a screening test. We were also limited in identifying objective characteristics of high-performing versus low-performing providers. Qualitative data suggest the intervention may be most relevant for pharmacies catering to lower-income clients.
We accordingly suggest that future engagement of pharmacy providers in TB screening and referral activities includes the following constituents. First is pharmacist–patient trust. This may be easier to establish within resource-poor neighbourhoods where pharmacies are a common first point of contact. Second is a multipronged approach to enticements. We found timely monetary incentives aligned with pharmacies’ revenue generating mandate, performance reports reiterated the value of their participation and training underscored the day-to-day realities of running a business as opposed to just normative expectations about professional pharmacy practice. (We recommend further reducing or easing provider documentation.) Third is creating liberal referral pathways by engaging wide numbers of doctors and laboratories. This would meet the needs of patients who decide on providers based on individualised algorithms around distance, cost and reputation, and the needs of gatekeeping pharmacy providers whose personal opinions and networks may govern how referrals are made. As most PPM projects do not cover doctor consultation fees, options should be conceived to cater to patients needing urgent TB care. In our study, patients’ expectation to be referred to familiar and reputed providers appeared important for referral completion. Last is a strong PPM infrastructure. We were able to piggyback on the foundational efforts of the UATBC programme, wherein networks of private pharmacies, doctors and laboratories, and referral procedures were already established.