Search

Due to the workload and lack of a critical mass of trained operational researchers within their ranks, health systems and programmes may not be able to dedicate sufficient time to conducting operational research (OR). Hence, they may need the technical support of operational researchers from research/academic organisations. Additionally, there is a knowledge gap regarding implementing differentiated tuberculosis (TB) care in programme settings. In this ‘how we did it’ paper, we share our experience of implementing a differentiated TB care model along with an inbuilt OR component in Tamil Nadu, a southern state in India. This was a health system initiative through a collaboration of the State TB cell with the Indian Council of Medical Research institutes and the World Health Organisation country office in India. The learnings are in the form of eleven tips: four broad principles (OR on priority areas and make it a health system initiative, implement simple and holistic ideas, embed OR within routine programme settings, aim for long-term engagement), four related to strategic planning (big team of investigators, joint leadership, decentralised decision-making, working in advance) and three about implementation planning (conducting pilots, smart use of e-tools and operational research publications at frequent intervals). These may act as a guide for other Indian states, high TB burden countries that want to implement differentiated care, and for operational researchers in providing technical assistance for strengthening implementation and conducting OR in health systems and programmes (TB or other health programmes). Following these tips may increase the chances of i) an enriching engagement, ii) policy/practice change, and iii) sustainable implementation.

Background India has been implementing active case-finding (ACF) for TB among marginalised and vulnerable (high-risk) populations since 2017. The effectiveness of ACF cycle(s) is dependent on the use of appropriate screening and diagnostic tools and meeting quality indicators. Objectives To determine the number of ACF cycles implemented in 2021 at national, state (n = 36) and district (n = 768) level and quality indicators for the first ACF cycle. Methods In this descriptive study, aggregate TB program data for each ACF activity that was extracted was further aggregated against each ACF cycle at the district level in 2021. One ACF cycle was the period identified to cover all the high-risk populations in the district. Three TB ACF quality indicators were calculated: percentage population screened (≥10%), percentage tested among screened (≥4.8%) and percentage diagnosed among tested (≥5%). We also calculated the number needed to screen (NNS) for diagnosing one person with TB (≤1538). Results Of 768 TB districts, ACF data for 111 were not available. Of the remaining 657 districts, 642 (98%) implemented one, and 15 implemented two to three ACF cycles. None of the districts or states met all three TB ACF quality indicators’ cut-offs. At the national level, for the first ACF cycle, 9.3% of the population were screened, 1% of the screened were tested and 3.7% of the tested were diagnosed. The NNS was 2824: acceptable (≤1538) in institutional facilities and poor for population-based groups. Data were not consistently available to calculate the percentage of i) high-risk population covered, ii) presumptive TB among screened and iii) tested among presumptive. Conclusion In 2021, India implemented one ACF cycle with sub-optimal ACF quality indicators. Reducing the losses between screening and testing, improving data quality and sensitising stakeholders regarding the importance of meeting all ACF quality indicators are recommended.