Abstract
Background To meet incidence reduction goals, the Global Plan to End TB 2023-30 emphasises for the first time that detection of subclinical TB is a priority. WHO Systematic Screening guidelines (2021) have stressed the importance of CXR as a screening tool to achieve this including recommending the use of Computer Aided Detection (CAD) technology.
Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of National TB Programmes who reported >1000 TB cases annually. The questions aligned with 2021 WHO screening guidelines and aimed to understand country’s practices, policies, and challenges when screening for TB disease.
Results Sixty of 123 invited countries responded representing 82% of the global TB burden. Only 66% carried out all 6 WHO-recommended steps to implement screening and 39% collected all 7 of the WHO-recommended datapoints for monitoring activity. Although most countries had a policy for using CXR and increasing CXR-based screening (77% and 68% respectively), 90% reported at least one significant barrier to implementing this and 92% reported at least one barrier to implementing CAD technology.
Conclusion Many countries do not carry out all recommended steps for implementation and monitoring of TB screening and although CXR and CAD use are expanding and hold promise as tools to find people with TB, many programmes do not have adequate access to them. While global policy is in place that recommends the use of these tools more efforts should be made to support countries in tackling the barriers that prohibit implementation to make sure that we can close the TB case finding gap.
What is already known on this topic Since the publication of the updated WHO TB screening guidelines there are limited published data on how countries carry out screening for TB disease and what the perceived challenges are for implementing screening from a country perspective.
What this study adds This study provides data on current and planned screening practices and policies within countries as well as the common challenges being faced to implement screening effectively.
How this study might affect research, practice, or policy This information will help developers, policymakers, funding agencies, and academics to better plan and support the roll-out of appropriate screening interventions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a Medical Research Council award (grant number: MR/V00476X/1) to HE. HE is partially supported by and Medical Research Council unit grant (grant number: MC UU 00004/04).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study had ethical approval from University College London Ethics Committee (19219/001).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
