ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Integrated health checks as a person-centred approach to systematic screening of household tuberculosis contacts: A realist-informed mixed-methods study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Principles and priorities for integrated tuberculosis screening and care: A modified Delphi consensus exercise.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Retaining Versus Engaging Youth in HIV Care: Perspectives From a Qualitative Study among Youth Living With HIV and Their Care Providers in Kenya and Uganda.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS CareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, tuberculosis incidence and mortality is driven by syndemic interactions of tuberculosis with other chronic conditions including HIV, diabetes and undernutrition in a deleterious social and structural context, often characterised by poverty. Systematic screening for tuberculosis among household contacts is a core element of the WHO tuberculosis strategy but is hampered in high-tuberculosis incidence settings by health system constraints and low participation by household members of people with tuberculosis. Reframing screening as a health check, informed by the syndemic framework, could improve uptake and address proximate determinants of tuberculosis. Within a larger research study aimed at evaluating new tuberculosis diagnostic tests we developed and, using mixed methods, evaluated an integrated health check in a prospective cohort of tuberculosis household contacts in Zimbabwe. This included screening for a range of health conditions, health education and counselling, and on-site treatment or referral. Of 836 identified household contacts, 700 (84%) participated in tuberculosis screening. Of those, 467 people (67% women, median age 28 years) were invited to the health check; all participated in the intervention. One percent (n = 5/459) were diagnosed with tuberculosis. Almost two thirds (n = 288) had at least one unmet health need (either undiagnosed or uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, HIV, anaemia, undernutrition, common mental health disorders, vision impairment, or tuberculosis). Of those referred following the health check, 66% accessed care for at least one condition, with variation across conditions. In-depth interviews with participants (n = 28), informed development of a refined explanatory theory, illustrating the benefits of a syndemic theory-based approach to tuberculosis screening for household contacts. Members of tuberculosis affected households have multiple, intersecting and unmet health needs. A holistic approach to systematic screening of household contacts guided by the syndemic framework could improve the health of these vulnerable people, advancing progress towards both tuberculosis and sustainable development goals.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.