A Methodological Review of Patient Healthcare-Seeking Journeys from Symptom Onset to Receipt of Care
====================================================================================================

* Charity Oga-Omenka
* Angelina Sassi
* Nathaly Aguilera Vasquez
* Namrata Rana
* Mohammad Yasir Essar
* Darryl Ku
* Hanna Diploma
* Lavanya Huria
* Kiran Saqib
* Rishav Das
* Guy Stallworthy
* Madhukar Pai

## Abstract

**Background** For many diseases, early diagnosis and treatment are more cost-effective, reduce community spread of infectious diseases, and result in better patient outcomes. However, healthcare-seeking and diagnoses for several diseases are unnecessarily delayed. For example, in 2022, 3 million and 5.6 million people living with TB and HIV respectively were undiagnosed. Many patients never access appropriate testing, remain undiagnosed after testing or drop out shortly after treatment initiation. This underscores challenges in accessing healthcare for many individuals. Understanding healthcare-seeking obstacles can expose bottlenecks in healthcare delivery and promote equity of access. We aimed to synthesize methodologies used to portray healthcare-seeking trajectories and provide a conceptual framework for patient journey analyses.

**Design/Methods** We conducted a literature search using keywords related to “patient/care healthcare-seeking/journey/pathway analysis” AND “TB” OR “infectious/pulmonary diseases” in PubMED, CINAHL, Web of Science and Global Health (OVID). From a preliminary scoping search and expert consultation, we developed a conceptual framework and honed the key data points necessary to understand patients’ healthcare-seeking journeys, which then served as our inclusion criteria for the subsequent expanded review. Retained papers included at least three of these data points.

**Results** Our conceptual framework included 5 data points and 7 related indicators that contribute to understanding patients’ experiences during healthcare-seeking. We retained 66 studies that met our eligibility criteria. Most studies (56.3%) were in Central and Southeast Asia, explored TB healthcare-seeking experiences (76.6%), were quantitative (67.2%), used in-depth, semi-structured, or structured questionnaires for data collection (73.4%). Healthcare-seeking journeys were explored, measured and portrayed in different ways, with no consistency in included information.

**Conclusions** We synthesized various methodologies in exploring patient healthcare-seeking journeys and found crucial data points necessary to understand challenges patients encounter when interacting with health systems. and offer insights to researchers and healthcare practitioners. Our framework proposes a standardized approach to patient journey research.

**What is already known about this subject?**

*   Accessing healthcare is challenging for half of the world’s population.

*   Understanding healthcare-seeking obstacles can help to expose bottlenecks in healthcare delivery and improve access.

**What does this study add?**

*   We synthesized the different methodologies used by researchers to portray healthcare- seeking trajectories.

*   We also provide a conceptual framework and recommendations for patient journey analyses.

**How do the new findings imply?**

*   Our analysis revealed a lack of consistency in how patient journeys to care are represented and a notable complexity in generating insightful depictions of journeys to care.

*   The use of our conceptual framework, namely the data points and indicators, could increase the reliability and generalisability patient journey analyses.

## Introduction

In 2021, 4.5 billion people or more than half of the world’s population lacked access to the healthcare they needed.1 Diagnoses for several diseases are unnecessarily delayed, contributing to prolonged suffering and avoidable deaths. For example, in 2022, an estimated 3 million and 5.6 million people living with TB and HIV respectively were undiagnosed. 2,3 A significant number of individuals with life-threatening illnesses never access appropriate testing, remain undiagnosed after testing or drop out before or shortly after treatment initiation. 4–7 Some reasons for these gaps in testing, diagnosis, and treatment include individual and interpersonal dynamics like lack of information about the disease and available resources, stigma, financial and cultural factors, symptom minimization, self- medication and mistrust of public sector healthcare8–13; as well as health system factors like poor coverage of services, low index of suspicion among providers, lengthy procedures, misdiagnosis, and poor referral mechanisms between the public and private sectors.10,14–16 These numbers underscore the substantial public health challenge that accessing healthcare poses for many individuals. Despite these barriers, early diagnosis and treatment remain critical for significantly improving clinical outcomes and reducing costs for both patients and the healthcare system, especially for infectious diseases like TB and HIV where early intervention is the most practical method to interrupt transmission.10,17

The World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the integrated people-centered health services framework in 2016 to prioritize people’s needs and expectations by engaging communities, reorienting models of care, coordinating services across sectors and strengthening governance and accountability.18–20 Person-centered care emphasizes treating patients as individuals and focuses on providing integrated care, patient information and support, and responding to patients’ values and preferences.21,22 To improve person-centered care, it is important to understand current patient journeys to care23. These studies shed light on the obstacles patients encounter during healthcare-seeking, expose healthcare delivery bottlenecks and promote equitable access.24–26 Understanding patient journeys is critical for making services more patient focused, by identifying gaps in service delivery to ensure quality care is accessible early in the healthcare-seeking process.12,27–29 While patient pathways analyses are emerging, lack of consistency in methods, or shared terms and frameworks makes it difficult to interpret across settings. Our review aimed to synthesize methodologies used to portray patients’ healthcare-seeking trajectories and provide a clear conceptual framework for patient journey analyses. In this review, we have explored methodologies used to highlight patient healthcare-seeking experiences from various disease contexts, including TB.

While also commonly referred to as patient pathways in literature, the healthcare-seeking journey analysis emphasized in this paper differs from the process analytics used to map and improve integration for in-hospital processes between the different departments30–33 or the pathway analysis to determine alignment between population health needs and available services.34,35 Patient journey analyses characterize and quantify the pathways to care of specific patients, detailing not only the total delays between key milestones36–39 but also the number and sequence of visits to healthcare providers. 27–29,40

Current literature has yet to explore the advantages and limitations of different methods of depicting healthcare-seeking trajectories and identifying the key variables that highlight these obstacles. The combination of conceptual and methodological reviews has been used widely in literature to critically appraise different research methods.41–43 A conceptual review is focused on key data points or variables and their relationships, with the goal of categorizing and describing them relevant to a particular topic.44–46 Methodological reviews differ from a traditional systematic review by prioritizing *methods* over *results*,47–50 synthesizing study quality by examining design, data collection and analysis.47,48 This review aims to synthesize methods for portraying patients’ trajectories for TB and other diseases and propose a conceptual framework for analyzing these journeys.

## Methods

### Review Objectives

The primary aim of our review was to assess relevant current practices, methodologies and relevant data points used to map patient care trajectories for TB and related diseases, focusing on the patient healthcare-seeking journey from symptom onset to care outcome across diverse healthcare settings and conditions. The research question was: ‘How do the methodologies employed for patient journey analysis (PJA) differ, what are their strengths and limitations?’.

### Review Approach

We use the conceptual and methodological review approaches, which adapt their scope and methods during the process.48,50 We used an iterative approach, using literature review and expert consultations to understand the patient healthcare-seeking journey. This entailed extensive database searches and consultations with experts in tuberculosis care and social science, and refining review findings based on iterative feedback.

### Search Strategy and Framework Development

Our process comprised of three steps: (1) A scoping literature search to identify relevant data points and methods; (2) Expert consultation to identify conceptual papers and recommended measures, followed by the development of conceptual map; and (3) An updated literature search targeting papers that included identified data points.

#### Initial scoping literature search

We performed a scoping search on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for publications on healthcare-seeking trajectories and delays related to TB diagnosis or treatment. The initial search was run in November 2021 (updated later, see below) and was restricted to peer-reviewed publications in the English language with no date restrictions. We also consulted with TB care experts to identify additional papers.

#### Development of the conceptual framework

Our conceptual framework was derived from the initial literature search followed by expert consultations. The lead author reviewed the literature and identified multiple criteria— variables, factors, and themes—that describe and influence patients’ journeys to care. The research team had several meetings to discuss, clarify, and define the key features to be included in the framework, culminating in developing the first draft. To validate the framework, the team sought expert consultation from experienced researchers and healthcare professionals in the field of TB and HIV care in several meetings, workshops, and conferences to identify additional data points, and ensure a comprehensive understanding of key methodological considerations. The conceptual framework, identifying key variables or themes for two care outcomes – diagnosis and treatment, was refined based on feedback from these interactions and used to define the inclusion criteria. As a result of this process, we decided to expand our initial literature search to cover methodologies used to describe patient healthcare-seeking journeys for infectious or pulmonary diseases, or diseases with non- specific symptoms or lengthy diagnostic procedures – including HIV, COVID, malaria and cancer, to strengthen the insights gained from this methodological review beyond what could be inferred from TB research alone. Defining the conceptual framework helped with the rest of the methodological review to identify the lack of consistency in methods and analytic approaches.

#### Updated literature search and inclusion criteria

We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Global Health (OVID), and Scopus for publications on healthcare-seeking trajectories, delays to diagnosis or treatment, and access to diagnosis or treatment, for TB, HIV, malaria, COVID-19, and other respiratory and lung disorders. The initial search of November 2021 was updated in April 2022 and searched again in May 2023. Our search strategy can be found in *Supplement 1*.

To be included in our review, studies had to include at least three of the identified data points for assessing patient journeys within the healthcare system in low- and middle-income countries (*Table 1*). We excluded case studies of individuals; non-scientific publications such as opinions or editorials; systematic reviews and meta-analyses; studies on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB), latent TB, and pediatric TB (children under 15 years); studies focusing solely on the cascade of care; articles written in languages other than English or French; and articles that did not provide a full report of the results of an experimental study (abstract, reviews, commentaries, proposals, methodology papers, or case study).

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T1)

Table 1: The key data points of patient healthcare-seeking journey

References retrieved from all databases were imported into Covidence. Title and abstract screening were carried out by five members of the team (NAV, COO, DK, AS, and MYE) and full-text screening by four members of the team (COO, LH, NAV, and MYE), meeting regularly to review progress and resolve conflicts. Agreement on inclusion between two reviewers was required for inclusion into the study. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer when necessary.

There are no clear guidelines for appraising the quality and risk of bias for methodological reviews.47,48 The focus of the appraisal process for this type of review should be on distinguishing between papers stemming from flawed empirical studies and those presenting well-argued theories.47 We used the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists51 for each applicable study type (qualitative, cross-sectional, cohort, or prevalence study) and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool52 for mixed-methods studies to evaluate the methodological rigor and reliability of the included studies and identify potential biases and limitations within the studies. Quality assessment was carried out by six members of the team (AS, NAV, RD, DK, MYE, and KS) using an electronic form which was piloted by AS and NR (*Supplement 3)*. Quality assessment for each paper was done by two independent reviewers and answers were finalized during a consensus meeting led by AS and MYE.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## Data extraction

Data extraction was done by six members of the team (AS, MYE, NR, DK, HD, and CO) using an electronic data extraction form hosted on Covidence (*Supplement 2*). The data extraction form was piloted by CO, NAV, LH, and NR prior to data extraction. The data extraction form aimed to collect general information (author name, publication year, country/setting, disease type, study design/data sources, study type and sample size), the journey criteria included for diagnosis and treatment, a general description of the methodology and analysis for each study, as well as strengths and limitations. Data extraction for each paper was done by two independent reviewers, and answers were finalized during a consensus meeting led by AS and MYE.

## Ethical considerations

No human participants were involved in this review.

## Funding and conflicts of interest

This work was supported by the McGill International TB Centre with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) [grant number INV-022420], and by the School of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo. MP was also supported by a Canada Research Chair award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The CIHR did not have any role in the conceptualization or writing of the manuscript or in the decision to submit it for publication. GS, a co-author of this manuscript and an employee of the BMGF provided valuable inputs on the study design, analysis, and revision of the manuscript. MP serves as an advisor to several non-profit organizations including Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO, Stop TB Partnership and FIND. He has no financial or industry conflicts. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study and accept responsibility to submit for publication.

## Results

### Definition of Key Data points and the Conceptual Map

The care continuum describes the sequence of activities needed to be fully engaged in clinical care for diseases like TB and HIV that requiring lengthy health system procedures to achieve an outcome.53–55 Our patient journey framework, developed after the initial review of literature, highlights the patient healthcare-seeking trajectory across three reference points: symptom recognition, diagnosis, and treatment initiation. Our review illustrates how patients consult various types of providers in differing numbers as they seek care between these reference points. To characterize each visit within a patient’s journey, we identified five key data points: (1) the date of the first visit relative to symptom onset, (2) the type of provider or facility visited (e.g., chemist, general practitioner, specialist, laboratory, hospital), (3) the sector of the provider or facility (for-profit, non-profit, public), (4) the sequence of the visit (first visit, second visit, etc.), and (5) the outcome of the visit (no outcome, diagnosis, treatment initiation). Using these data points, we can compute various indicators for both individual patients and aggregated patient populations. These measures include (1) the number of days and (2) visits until care outcome (diagnosis or treatment initiation), (3) the proportion of visits to different types of providers, (4) the contribution of various provider types to care outcome (diagnosis or treatment) as well as to (6) delays or missed opportunities, and (7) the number of patients exhibiting different patterns or sequences of provider visits. This comprehensive analysis can inform strategies to optimize patient care experiences and reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment.

Our conceptual framework (*Figure 1*) illustrates the steps in a patient journey and the time delays between key milestones of symptom recognition, diagnosis, and treatment. Starting with symptom recognition, factors like symptom minimization and lack of knowledge of services have been shown to influence healthcare-seeking delays, while the type and sector of first provider have been shown to influence number of subsequent encounters before and timeliness of diagnosis.10,11,56,57 Several health system factors have been shown to influence the timing and number of encounters between the reference points of diagnosis and treatment.10,11,58 Delays are conceptualized as healthcare-seeking, provider and treatment delays, with diagnostic delays being the sum of healthcare-seeking and provider delays, and health system delays representing the sum of provider and treatment delays.27,29

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F1)

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of healthcare-seeking journeys

### Characteristics of Included Studies

The PRISMA flow diagram (*Figure 2*) shows search results from the five main databases. Out of the 12160 studies whose titles and abstracts were initially screened from those databases, 297 studies were assessed for retrieval and eligibility, 231 were excluded through full-text review, and 66 studies were retained that met our eligibility criteria. Each of these 66 studies (our unit of analysis) was a patient journey analysis publication.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F2)

Figure 2: Prisma diagram of study selection process

Out of the 66 retained studies, we assessed 21 to be of high quality, 37 to be medium quality, and 8 to be of low quality. There were no major differences in the methods for the studies assessed with different qualities.

*Table 2* summarizes journey methodology characteristics of included studies. Many studies were quantitative (82%), were conducted in lower middle-income countries (56%), in Asia (59%), and covered TB care journeys (67%). Other diseases include the following: cancer (6.1%), acute febrile illnesses (4.5%), malaria (4.5%), chest symptomatic (3.0%), multiple infectious diseases (3.0%), non-communicable diseases (3.0%), sexually transmitted infections (3.0%), under-five mortality (3.0%), and COVID-19 (1.5%).

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T2)

Table 2: Characteristics of included manuscripts

*Figure 3a* summarizes the distribution of patient healthcare-seeking data points aggregated across all included studies. The majority included information on location/provider where treatment was initiated (67%), sector of the providers visited (61%), time to diagnosis (56%), location/provider where a diagnosis was made (55%), number of provider encounters to diagnosis (53%), and type of the providers visited (50%). Proportions of patients per number of encounters to diagnosis (33%) and treatment (20%), and number of provider encounters to treatment (30%) were less commonly explored in the included papers. *Figure 3b* shows that most of the patient healthcare-seeking data points were reported within studies the four disease groups. Type of facility/provider where treatment was started is more frequently found in articles focused on malaria and fevers and other infectious diseases compared to other disease types. Most categories of data were available in all types of study design (*Figure 3b*).

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F3/graphic-7.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F3/graphic-7)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F3/graphic-8.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/F3/graphic-8)

Figure 3: Distribution of journey data points across all included studies, by disease types and study designs

*Table 3* details the depictions of healthcare-seeking journeys and statistical methods used in the included studies. The most common forms of depicting patient healthcare-seeking journeys were tables quantifying delays and/or journeys (48%) and flowcharts (48%). Descriptive statistics (88%), multivariate regressions (45%), chi-squared test (45%), and logistic regression (36%) were the most frequently used statistical methods.

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T3)

Table 3: Journey depictions and statistical methodologies

Table 4 depicts the outcome measures and independent variables used in the included articles. Overall, patient delay (58%) was the most common outcome measure for the 66 included studies. Over one-third (42%) of included articles did not report all possible delays that could have been reported in the manuscript; for example, if the authors reported diagnostic delay (defined27,29 as the number of days between the onset of symptoms and the date of diagnosis and composed of patient delay and provider delay) but did not also report both patient and provider delay. Other than overall delay, the most reported outcome measures of patient journeys were number of visits to diagnosis (36%), sector of facility and type of provider for all instances of healthcare-seeking (36% and 33%, respectively), and type of provider for initial healthcare-seeking visit (32%). Time to initial healthcare-seeking was reported in 29% of included studies. Patient age (97%) and sex or gender (92%) were the two most used independent variables among the 66 included studies, followed by level of education (62%) and occupation (59%). Among patient health status and patient behavior variables, type of disease (30%), presence of any comorbidities (27%), and HIV status (27%) were often included as independent variables. Some patient healthcare-seeking journey characteristics were used as independent variables in analyses of delays, for example, number of visits (30%), sector of facility (39%) and type of provider (38%) of initial healthcare- seeking visit.

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T4)

Table 4: Outcome measures and independent variables used

## Discussions

In our review, we aimed to understand and characterize methodologies used to assess patient journeys to care. Understanding patient journeys helps pinpoint bottlenecks and interventions to minimize missed diagnostic and treatment opportunities among various types of healthcare providers, improve hospital coordination and reduce overall delays in care. Moreover, accurately characterizing aggregate patient journeys between different locations or across different times enhances progress monitoring and policymaking. This requires developing better, consistent metrics and more insightful data visualizations.

Our analysis revealed a lack of consistency in how patient journeys to care are represented and a notable complexity in generating insightful depictions of journeys to care, indicating the challenges in using data to guide healthcare interventions effectively. The scarcity of tools and clear guidelines for analyzing and presenting such complex data further complicates this task, highlighting an urgent need for simple, open-access tools and standardized analytical methods to improve our understanding of patient healthcare-seeking journeys.

We posit that our proposed conceptual framework, identified data points and indicators address this knowledge gap effectively, offering guidance to improve consistency in the analysis of patient journey or healthcare-seeking experiences.

The reviewed papers typically addressed an average of four identified key data points, with patient delays, and the type or sector of facility where the patient was diagnosed or treated being the most often examined. We also noted that the number of provider visits needed for diagnosis or treatment were only reported in 24% and 12% respectively. In our view, the number of visits to diagnosis and treatment are among the most important data points for understanding patient care barriers, as both give us an insight into delays as well as the direct and indirect costs of care. Overall, as none of these factors alone fully characterize patient experiences, or highlight missed diagnostic and treatment opportunities, reporting all data points relevant to the outcome under review (diagnosis or treatment) is crucial for a comprehensive view of patient care journeys. Thus, our methodological review highlighted the key features of patient trajectories (*Table 1*) that offer insights into the missed opportunities. Additionally, we recommend additional statistical analyses to identify risk factors for having more provider visits or longer delays in the patient care continuum using patients’ sociodemographic characteristics and health status (*Table 4*). We propose the need for an open source analysis package for Patient Journey Analyses.

### Strengths and limitations of study designs

We assessed the strengths and limitations for each study design. Cross-sectional studies provide overview of patient proportions and care-seeking behaviours and quantify patient proportions between visits or delays. Still, varying tools and measures across studies can make collating results challenging and lead to inconsistencies. Cohort studies excel in examining care-seeking behaviors over time and identifying risk factors for delays, providing insights into temporal relationships and complex journeys, though they require large sample sizes and are also vulnerable to recall bias, especially in studies of diseases with low prevalence.

Despite being more resource-intensive, mixed methods research combines quantitative data with rich qualitative insights from key informants. Qualitative research delves deep into the experiences and obstacles within patient journeys, offering flexibility in adapting to different contexts, but is similarly limited by recall bias, high costs, and small sample sizes.

### Implications for Future Research

Patient journey analyses are prone to potential inconsistencies in data collection, particularly regarding sampling of patients, measuring encounters by number of providers or visits, and the measurement of time reference points (symptom onset, diagnosis, and treatment). Future research should focus on developing clear, practical recommendations for conducting patient journey analyses and creating open-access tools to overcome methodological and resource limitations. These advancements are crucial for researchers and teams aiming to analyze patient journeys effectively to identify and address care bottlenecks. Learning from our experiences and adopting these strategies will improve the reliability and comparability of patient journey analyses in future studies.

To mitigate recall bias, researchers need to pilot test study instruments, train data collection teams, employ specific sampling strategies (e.g., recruiting patients diagnosed within the last six months), and utilize data triangulation, including mixed methods and comparison to earlier studies where possible. Additionally, data collectors need to be creative in helping patients recall key dates, e.g. with use of local or national events, and/or use clinical records to verify patient-reported dates, where feasible.

Conceptually, incorporating patient cost surveys into journey analyses is another opportunity for a comprehensive understanding of patient care barriers, particularly where these include incurred costs for all healthcare provider visits. Cost surveys are often conducted by economists with a primary focus on cost analysis, and rarely provide detailed insights into the nuances of patient journeys. Conversely, patient journeys analyses rarely include cost data.

This disconnect between cost analysis and journey mapping presents a significant gap in the literature and integrating both aspects could provide a more holistic view of patient experiences and economic impacts. To address this gap, we recommend that future patient cost surveys be designed to enable rigorous analysis of patient journeys, and vice versa. Such an approach would facilitate a better understanding of both the financial and experiential data points of patient care-seeking behaviours. Ultimately, this dual-focus approach could significantly enhance the quality of insights derived from patient surveys, leading to improved patient-centric service delivery and better-informed healthcare policy decisions.

## Conclusions

Our findings underscore the critical need for better approaches to compare patient journeys and develop interventions, emphasizing the importance of clear guidelines and accessible tools to facilitate this analysis. This work lays the groundwork for future efforts to enhance access, quality, and equity in healthcare service provision.

## Supplementary materials

### Supplement 1 - Methodological Review Search Strategy

CINAHL

No field selected; Suggest subject terms checked

Total: 519 [6 Apr 29], update TB: 19, May 05

View this table:
[Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T5)

PubMed

Total: 1631 [1625 apr 29], update TB: 100 May 05

Health seeking pathways (May 8):

View this table:
[Table6](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T6)

Web of Science

TS search; no filter

Total: 1336 (3518 apr 29), update TB: 58, May 05

View this table:
[Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T7)

Global Health via Ovid

Total: 932 (2798 apr 29), update TB: 100 May 05

No filter

View this table:
[Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T8)

### Supplement 2 - Data extraction form

#### General information

View this table:
[Table9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T9)

#### Patient healthcare-seeking journey data points included

View this table:
[Table10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T10)

#### Journey methodology & analysis

View this table:
[Table11](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T11)

Outcome measures

View this table:
[Table12](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T12)

Other variables

View this table:
[Table13](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T13)

### Supplement 3 – Quality Assessment Electronic Forms

#### General information

View this table:
[Table14](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T14)

#### Qualitative Research Quality Assessment

Source: [https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist\_for\_Qualitative\_Research.docx](https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Qualitative_Research.docx)

Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.

View this table:
[Table15](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T15)

#### Mixed Methods Quality Assessment

Adapted from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Citation: Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau B, O’Cathain A, Rousseau M-C, Vedel I. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.

View this table:
[Table16](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T16)

#### Analytical Cross-Sectional Quality Assessment

Source: [https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist\_for\_Analytical\_Cross\_Sectional\_Studies.docx](https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist\_for\_Analytical_Cross_Sectional_Studies.docx)

Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.

View this table:
[Table17](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T17)

#### Cohort Study Quality Assessment

Source: [https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist\_for\_Cohort\_Studies.docx](https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Cohort_Studies.docx)

Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.

View this table:
[Table18](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T18)

#### Prevalence Study Quality Assessment

Source: [https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist\_for\_Prevalence\_Studies.docx](https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2021-10/Checklist_for_Prevalence_Studies.docx)

Discussion of critical appraisal criteria are added before each question for context.

View this table:
[Table19](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T19)

### Supplement 4 – Quality Appraisal

View this table:
[Table20](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/02/2024.08.01.24311159/T20)

*   Received August 1, 2024.
*   Revision received August 1, 2024.
*   Accepted August 2, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.World Health Organization. Tracking universal health coverage: 2023 global monitoring report: World Health Organization; 2023.
    
    

2.  2.World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2023. 2023.
    
    

3.  3.Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. The path that ends AIDS: 2023 UNAIDS global AIDS update. 2023.
    
    

4.  4.Faust L, Naidoo P, Caceres-Cardenas G, et al. Improving measurement of tuberculosis care cascades to enhance people-centred care. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2023.
    
    

5.  5.MacPherson P, Houben RM, Glynn JR, Corbett EL, Kranzer K. Pre-treatment loss to follow-up in tuberculosis patients in low-and lower-middle-income countries and high- burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2013; 92: 126–38.
    
    

6.  6.Arokiasamy P, Uttamacharya, Kowal P, et al. Chronic noncommunicable diseases in 6 low-and middle-income countries: findings from wave 1 of the World Health Organization’s study on global Ageing and adult health (SAGE). American journal of epidemiology 2017; 185(6): 414–28.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

7.  7.Johnson CC, Fonner V, Sands A, et al. To err is human, to correct is public health: a systematic review examining poor quality testing and misdiagnosis of HIV status. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2017; 20: 21755.
    
    

8.  8.Mwenesi H, Harpham T, Snow RW. Child malaria treatment practices among mothers in Kenya. Social science & medicine 1995; 40(9): 1271–7.
    
    

9.  9.Räisänen U, Hunt K. The role of gendered constructions of eating disorders in delayed help-seeking in men: a qualitative interview study. BMJ open 2014; 4(4): e004342.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24713213&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

10. 10.Storla DG, Yimer S, Bjune GA. A systematic review of delay in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. BMC public health 2008; 8: 1–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2458-8-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18173844&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

11. 11.Oga-Omenka C, Tseja-Akinrin A, Sen P, et al. Factors influencing diagnosis and treatment initiation for multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in six sub- Saharan African countries: a mixed-methods systematic review. BMJ global health 2020; 5(7): e002280.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjUvNy9lMDAyMjgwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMDIvMjAyNC4wOC4wMS4yNDMxMTE1OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

12. 12.Mavhu W, Dauya E, Bandason T, et al. Chronic cough and its association with TB–HIV co-infection: factors affecting help-seeking behaviour in Harare, Zimbabwe. Tropical Medicine & International Health 2010; 15(5): 574–9.
    
    

13. 13.Allen H, Wright BJ, Harding K, Broffman L. The role of stigma in access to health care for the poor. The Milbank Quarterly 2014; 92(2): 289–318.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1468-0009.12059&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24890249&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000337525000014&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.Cai J, Wang X, Ma A, Wang Q, Han X, Li Y. Factors associated with patient and provider delays for tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one 2015; 10(3): e0120088.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

15. 15.Stallworthy G, Dias HM, Pai M. Quality of tuberculosis care in the private health sector. Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases 2020; 20: 100171.
    
    

16. 16.Carrillo JE, Carrillo VA, Perez HR, Salas-Lopez D, Natale-Pereira A, Byron AT. Defining and targeting health care access barriers. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved 2011; 22(2): 562–75.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1353/hpu.2011.0037&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21551934&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290461800016&link_type=ISI) 

17. 17.Tanimura T, Jaramillo E, Weil D, Raviglione M, Lönnroth K. Financial burden for tuberculosis patients in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. European Respiratory Journal 2014; 43(6): 1763–75.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiZXJqIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjQzLzYvMTc2MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzAyLzIwMjQuMDguMDEuMjQzMTExNTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

18. 18.Organization WH. The END TB strategy: World Health Organization; 2015.
    
    

19. 19.World Health Organization. Interim report: placing people and communities at the centre of health services: WHO global strategy on integrated people-centred health services 2016-2026: executive summary: World Health Organization, 2015.
    
    

20. 20.World Health Organization. World Health Assembly adopts framework on integrated people-centred health services. World Health Organization 2016.
    
    

21. 21.Odone A, Roberts B, Dara M, Van Den Boom M, Kluge H, McKee M. People-and patient-centred care for tuberculosis: models of care for tuberculosis. The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease 2018; 22(2): 133–8.
    
    

22. 22.Shaller D. Patient-centered care: what does it take?: Commonwealth Fund New York; 2007.
    
    

23. 23.World Health Organization. Compendium of data and evidence-related tools for use in TB planning and programming. Compendium of data and evidence-related tools for use in TB planning and programming; 2021.
    
    

24. 24.Oliver A, Mossialos E. Equity of access to health care: outlining the foundations for action. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2004; 58(8): 655–8.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiamVjaCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI1OC84LzY1NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzA4LzAyLzIwMjQuMDguMDEuMjQzMTExNTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

25. 25.Oga-Omenka C, Bada F, Agbaje A, Dakum P, Menzies D, Zarowsky C. Ease and equity of access to free DR-TB services in Nigeria-a qualitative analysis of policies, structures and processes. International Journal for Equity in Health 2020; 19: 1–13.
    
    

26. 26.Daniels N. Equity of access to health care: some conceptual and ethical issues. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society 1982: 51–81.
    
    

27. 27.Huria L, Lestari BW, Saptiningrum E, et al. Care pathways of individuals with tuberculosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bandung, Indonesia. PLOS Global Public Health 2024; 4(1): e0002251.
    
    

28. 28.Lestari BW, McAllister S, Hadisoemarto PF, et al. Patient pathways and delays to diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in an urban setting in Indonesia. Lancet Regional Health-Western Pacific 2020; 5.
    
    

29. 29.Oga-Omenka C, Rosapep L, Baruwa E, et al. Individual journeys to tuberculosis care in Nigeria’s private sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Global Health 2024; 9(1): e013124.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjkvMS9lMDEzMTI0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDgvMDIvMjAyNC4wOC4wMS4yNDMxMTE1OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

30. 30.Pinder R, Petchey R, Shaw S, Carter Y. What’s in a care pathway? Towards a cultural cartography of the new NHS. Sociology of health & illness 2005; 27(6): 759–79.
    
    

31. 31.Lismont J, Janssens A-S, Odnoletkova I, vanden Broucke S, Caron F, Vanthienen J. A guide for the application of analytics on healthcare processes: A dynamic view on patient pathways. Computers in biology and medicine 2016; 77: 125–34.
    
    

32. 32.Richter P, Schlieter H. Understanding patient pathways in the context of integrated health care services-implications from a scoping review. 2019.
    
    

33. 33.Gartner J-B, Abasse KS, Bergeron F, Landa P, Lemaire C, Côté A. Definition and conceptualization of the patient-centered care pathway, a proposed integrative framework for consensus: a concept analysis and systematic review. BMC health services research 2022; 22(1): 558.
    
    

34. 34.Hanson CL, Osberg M, Brown J, Durham G, Chin DP. Conducting patient-pathway analysis to inform programming of tuberculosis services: methods. The Journal of infectious diseases 2017; 216(suppl_7): S679–S85.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

35. 35.Hanson C, Osberg M, Brown J, Durham G, Chin DP. Finding the missing patients with tuberculosis: lessons learned from patient-pathway analyses in 5 countries. The Journal of infectious diseases 2017; 216(suppl_7): S686–S95.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

36. 36.Li Y, Ehiri J, Tang S, et al. Factors associated with patient, and diagnostic delays in Chinese TB patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine 2013; 11: 1–15.
    
    

37. 37.Obsa MS, Daga WB, Wosene NG, et al. Treatment seeking delay and associated factors among tuberculosis patients attending health facility in Ethiopia from 2000 to 2020: a systematic review and meta analysis. PloS one 2021; 16(7): e0253746.
    
    

38. 38.Ukwaja KN, Alobu I, Nweke CO, Onyenwe EC. Healthcare-seeking behavior, treatment delays and its determinants among pulmonary tuberculosis patients in rural Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. BMC health services research 2013; 13: 1–9.
    
    

39. 39.Almeida CPBd, Skupien EC, Silva DR. Health care seeking behavior and patient delay in tuberculosis diagnosis. Cadernos de saude publica 2015; 31(2): 321–30.
    
    

40. 40.Fuady A, Houweling TAJ, Mansyur M, Burhan E, Richardus JH. Cost of seeking care for tuberculosis since the implementation of universal health coverage in Indonesia. BMC Health Services Research 2020; 20(502).
    
    

41. 41.Camfield L, Streuli N, Woodhead M. Children’s well-being in developing countries: A conceptual and methodological review. The European Journal of Development Research 2010; 22: 398–416.
    
    

42. 42.Wang J, Lloyd-Evans B, Giacco D, et al. Social isolation in mental health: a conceptual and methodological review. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology 2017; 52: 1451–61.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00127-017-1446-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

43. 43.Kallio H, Pietilä AM, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing 2016; 72(12): 2954–65.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/jan.13031&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

44. 44.Frederiksen L, Phelps SF, Kimmons R. Introduction to literature reviews. Rapid academic writing [document on the Internet] c2018 [cited 2021 Oct 13] Available from: [https://edtechbooks.org/pdfs/mobile/rapidwriting/lit\_rev\_intro.pdf](https://edtechbooks.org/pdfs/mobile/rapidwriting/lit_rev_intro.pdf) 2018.
    
    

45. 45.Hulland J. Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review 2020; 10(1): 27–35.
    
    

46. 46.Jit M, Ng DHL, Luangasanatip N, et al. Quantifying the economic cost of antibiotic resistance and the impact of related interventions: rapid methodological review, conceptual framework and recommendations for future studies. BMC medicine 2020; 18: 1–14.
    
    

47. 47.Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, et al. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Systematic reviews 2014; 3: 1–11.
    
    

48. 48.Mbuagbaw L, Lawson DO, Puljak L, Allison DB, Thabane L. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2020; 20: 1–12.
    
    

49. 49.Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC medical research methodology 2018; 18: 1–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7&link_type=DOI) 

50. 50.Lilford RJ, Richardson A, Stevens A, et al. Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners. 2001.
    
    

51. 51.Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical Appraisal Tools. 2020. [https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools](https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools).
    
    

52. 52.Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for information 2018; 34(4): 285–91.
    
    

53. 53.Yang W-T, Gounder CR, Akande T, et al. Barriers and delays in tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment services: does gender matter? Tuberculosis research and treatment 2014; 2014.
    
    

54. 54.Subbaraman R, Jhaveri T, Nathavitharana RR. Closing gaps in the tuberculosis care cascade: an action-oriented research agenda. Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases 2020; 19: 100144.
    
    

55. 55.Mugavero MJ, Amico KR, Horn T, Thompson MA. The state of engagement in HIV care in the United States: from cascade to continuum to control. Clinical infectious diseases 2013; 57(8): 1164–71.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cit420&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23797289&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

56. 56.Oga-Omenka C, Boffa J, Kuye J, Dakum P, Menzies D, Zarowsky C. Understanding the gaps in DR-TB care cascade in Nigeria: A sequential mixed-method study. Journal of Clinical Tuberculosis and Other Mycobacterial Diseases 2020; 21: 100193.
    
    

57. 57.Baru RV. Disease and Suffering: Towards a Framework for Understanding Health Seeking Behavior. Indian Anthropologist 2005: 45–52.
    
    

58. 58.Lestari BW, McAllister S, Hadisoemarto PF, et al. Patient pathways and delays to diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in an urban setting in Indonesia. The Lancet Regional Health–Western Pacific 2020; 5.
    
    

59. 59.Ahmad RA, Mahendradhata Y, Utarini A, de Vlas SJ. Diagnostic delay amongst tuberculosis patients in Jogjakarta Province, Indonesia is related to the quality of services in DOTS facilities. Tropical Medicine & International Health 2011; 16(4): 412–23.
    
    

60. 60.Ansar A, Lewis V, McDonald CF, Liu C, Rahman MA. Duration of intervals in the care seeking pathway for lung cancer in Bangladesh: A journey from symptoms triggering consultation to receipt of treatment. PloS one 2021; 16(9): e0257301.
    
    

61. 61.Asres A, Jerene D, Deressa W. Delays to anti-tuberculosis treatment intiation among cases on directly observed treatment short course in districts of southwestern Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19(1): 481.
    
    

62. 62.Atre SR, Jagtap JD, Faqih MI, et al. Tuberculosis pathways to care and transmission of multidrug resistance in India. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2022; 205(2): 233–41.
    
    

63. 63.Ayisi JG, Hoog AHv, Agaya JA, et al. Care seeking and attitudes towards treatment compliance by newly enrolled tuberculosis patients in the district treatment programme in rural western Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2011; 11(515).
    
    

64. 64.Bronner Murrison L, Ananthakrishnan R, Swaminathan A, et al. How do patients access the private sector in Chennai, India? An evaluation of delays in tuberculosis diagnosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2016; 20(4): 544–51.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

65. 65.Diallo A, Combary A, Veronese V, et al. Delays in TB Diagnosis and Treatment Initiation in Burkina Faso during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Trop Med Infect Dis 2022; 7(9).
    
    

66. 66.Gothankar JS, Patil UP, Gaikwad SR, Kamble SB. Care seeking behaviour and various delays in tuberculosis patients registered under RNTCP in Pune city. Indian Journal of Community Health 2016; 28(1): 34–9.
    
    

67. 67.Guan Z, Webber C, Flemming JA, et al. Real-world colorectal cancer diagnostic pathways in Ontario, Canada: A population-based study. European Journal of Cancer Care 2022; 31(5): 1-13.
    
    

68. 68.Herdman MT, Maude RJ, Chowdhury MS, et al. The relationship between poverty and healthcare seeking among patients hospitalized with acute febrile illnesses in Chittagong, Bangladesh. PLoS One 2016; 11(4): e0152965.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

69. 69.Kasse Y, Jasseh M, Corrah T, et al. Health seeking behaviour, health system experience and tuberculosis case finding in Gambians with cough. BMC Public Health 2006; 6(143).
    
    

70. 70.Kumawat A, Chakraborti A, Kumar S, et al. Study of factors leading to treatment delay in new sputum positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients and its impact on sputum conversion. Tropical Doctor.
    
    

71. 71.Lancaster L, Bonella F, Inoue Y, et al. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Physician and patient perspectives on the pathway to care from symptom recognition to diagnosis and disease burden. Respirology (Carlton, Vic) 2022; 27(1): 66–75.
    
    

72. 72.Laokri S, Drabo MK, Weil O, Kafando B, Dembélé SM, Dujardin B. Patients are paying too much for tuberculosis: a direct cost-burden evaluation in Burkina Faso. PLoS One 2013; 8(2): e56752.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0056752&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23451079&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

73. 73.Maamari F. Case-finding tuberculosis patients: diagnostic and treatment delays and their determinants. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2008; 14(3): 531–45.
    
    

74. 74.Mercer CH, Sutcliffe L, Johnson AM, et al. How much do delayed healthcare seeking, delayed care provision, and diversion from primary care contribute to the transmission of STIs? SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS 2007; 83(5): 400–5.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiODMvNS80MDAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wOC8wMi8yMDI0LjA4LjAxLjI0MzExMTU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

75. 75.Mistry N, Lobo E, Shah S, Rangan S, Dholakia Y. Pulmonary tuberculosis in Patna, India: Durations, delays, and health care seeking behaviour among patients identified through household surveys. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health 2017; 7(4): 241-8.
    
    

76. 76.Mistry N, Rangan S, Dholakia Y, Lobo E, Shah S, Patil A. Durations and Delays in Care Seeking, Diagnosis and Treatment Initiation in Uncomplicated Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients in Mumbai, India. PLoS One 2016; 11(3).
    
    

77. 77.Priya R, Kalpita S, Bhaskaran U, Abhinav P, Abhirami N. Patient treatment pathways of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis cases in coastal South India: road to a drug resistant tuberculosis center [version 5; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021; 8(498).
    
    

78. 78.Rajeswari R, Chandrasekaran V, Suhadev M, Sivasubramaniam S, Sudha G, Renu G. Factors associated with patient and health system delays in the diagnosis of tuberculosis in South India. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2002; 6(9): 789–95.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12234134&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000177864900008&link_type=ISI) 

79. 79.Salaniponi FM, Harries AD, Banda HT, et al. Care seeking behaviour and diagnostic processes in patients with smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis in Malawi. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000; 4(4): 327–32.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10777081&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000086313700008&link_type=ISI) 

80. 80.Shah S, Shah S, Rangan S, et al. Effect of public-private interface agency in Patna and Mumbai, India: Does it alter durations and delays in care seeking for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis? Gates Open Res 2020; 4: 32.
    
    

81. 81.Sharma N, Bhatnagar A, Basu S, et al. A comparison of patient treatment pathways among multidrug-resistant and drug-sensitive TB cases in Delhi, India: A cross-sectional study. Indian J Tuberc 2020; 67(4): 502-8.
    
    

82. 82.Steel Z, McDonald R, Silove D, et al. Pathways to the first contact with specialist mental health care. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2006; 40(4): 347–54.
    
    

83. 83.Tay M, Ang L, Wei W, Lee VJM, Leo Y, Toh MPHS. Health-seeking behavior of COVID- 19 cases during the first eight weeks of the outbreak in Singapore: differences between local community and imported cases and having visits to single or multiple healthcare providers. BMC Public Health 2022; 22(239).
    
    

84. 84.Thomas N, Rajalingam R, Vallabhaneni V, Varghese J. A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study to Ascertain Factors Influencing Delay in Diagnosis among Newly Diagnosed Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients. Indian Journal of Respiratory Care 2022; 11(4): 341–8.
    
    

85. 85.Veesa KS, John KR, Moonan PK, et al. Diagnostic pathways and direct medical costs incurred by new adult pulmonary tuberculosis patients prior to anti-tuberculosis treatment - Tamil Nadu, India. PLoS One 2018; 13(2): e0191591.
    
    

86. 86.Viney KA, Johnson P, Tagaro M, et al. Tuberculosis patients’ knowledge and beliefs about tuberculosis: a mixed methods study from the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu. BMC Public Health 2014; 14.
    
    

87. 87.Wei X, Zou G, Yin J, Walley J, Sun Q. Comparing patient care seeking pathways in three models of hospital and TB programme collaboration in China. BMC Infectious Diseases 2013; 13(93).
    
    

88. 88.Wei XL, Liang XY, Walley JD, Liu FY, Dong BQ. Analysis of care-seeking pathways of tuberculosis patients in Guangxi, China, with and without decentralised tuberculosis services. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2009; 13(4): 514–20.
    
    

89. 89.White V, Bergin RJ, Thomas RJ, Whitfield K, Weller D. The pathway to diagnosis and treatment for surgically managed lung cancer patients. Family practice 2020; 37(2): 234–41.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

90. 90.Yellappa V, Lefèvre P, Battaglioli T, Devadasan N, Van der Stuyft P. Patients pathways to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in a fragmented health system: a qualitative study from a south Indian district. BMC public health 2017; 17(1): 1–10.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-017-4129-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

91. 91.Zhang L, Weng T, Wang H, et al. Patient pathway analysis of tuberculosis diagnostic delay: a multicentre retrospective cohort study in China. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2021; 27(7): 1000–6.
    
    

92. 92.Abimbola S, Ukwaja KN, Onyedum CC, Negin J, Jan S, Martiniuk AL. Transaction costs of access to health care: Implications of the care-seeking pathways of tuberculosis patients for health system governance in Nigeria. Glob Public Health 2015; 10(9): 1060–77.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

93. 93.Asbroek AHAt, Bijlsma MW, Malla P, Shrestha B, Delnoij DMJ. The road to tuberculosis treatment in rural Nepal: a qualitative assessment of 26 journeys. BMC Health Services Research 2008; 8(7).
    
    

94. 94.Aye R, Wyss K, Abdualimova H, Saidaliev S. Patient’s site of first access to health system influences length of delay for tuberculosis treatment in Tajikistan. BMC Health Services Research 2010; 10(10).
    
    

95. 95.Benjarattanaporn P, Lindan CP, Mills S, et al. Men with sexually transmitted diseases in Bangkok: where do they go for treatment and why? Aids 1997; 11(Supplement1): S87–S95.
    
    

96. 96.Bhattacharya Chakravarty A, Rangan S, Dholakia Y, et al. Such a long journey: What health seeking pathways of patients with drug resistant tuberculosis in Mumbai tell us. PLoS One 2019; 14(1): e0209924.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

97. 97.Kallander K, Counihan H, Cerveau T, Mbofana F. Barriers on the pathway to survival for children dying from treatable illnesses in Inhambane province, Mozambique. Journal of Global Health 2019; 9(1).
    
    

98. 98.Mesfin MM, Newell JN, Walley JD, Gessessew A, Madeley RJ. Delayed consultation among pulmonary tuberculosis patients: a cross sectional study of 10 DOTS districts of Ethiopia. BMC Public Health 2009; 9(53).
    
    

99. 99.Millar KR, McCutcheon J, Coakley EH, et al. Patterns and predictors of malaria care- seeking, diagnostic testing, and artemisinin-based combination therapy for children under five with fever in Northern Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. Malaria Journal 2014; 13(447).
    
    

100.100.Pati S, Sahoo KC, Samal M, et al. Care-seeking pathways, care challenges, and coping experiences of rural women living with rheumatoid arthritis in Odisha, India. Primary Health Care Research & Development 2019; 20.
    
    

101.101.Renthlei L, Murhekar MV. Health-seeking behaviour for febrile illness in malaria- endemic Kolasib district, Mizoram, India. International Health (RSTMH) 2012; 4(4): 314–9.
    
    

102.102.Shete PB, Haguma P, Miller CR, et al. Pathways and costs of care for patients with tuberculosis symptoms in rural Uganda. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2015; 19(8): 912–7.
    
    

103.103.Tadokera R, Huo S, Theron G, Timire C, Manyau-Makumbirofa S, Metcalfe JZ. Health care seeking patterns of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis patients in Harare, Zimbabwe: A prospective cohort study. PLoS One 2021; 16(7).
    
    

104.104.Thomas BE, Thiruvengadam K, Raghavi S, et al. Understanding health care-seeking behaviour of the tribal population in India among those with presumptive TB symptoms. PLoS One 2021; 16(5).
    
    

105.105.Wei X, Yin J, Zou G, et al. Patient care pathways under the model of integrating tuberculosis service with general hospitals in China. Tropical Medicine & International Health 2013; 18(11): 1392–9.
    
    

106.106.Wong K, Mollendorf Cv, Martinson N, et al. Healthcare utilization for common infectious disease syndromes in Soweto and Klerksdorp, South Africa. Pan African Medical Journal 2018; 30: 271.
    
    

107.107.Almeida CP, Skupien EC, Silva DR. Health care seeking behavior and patient delay in tuberculosis diagnosis. Cad Saude Publica 2015; 31(2): 321–30.
    
    

108.108.Ananthakrishnan R, Jeyaraju AR, Palani G, Sathiyasekaran BWC. Care Seeking Behavior of the TB Patients who were Registered in an Urban Government Tuberculosis Control in Chennai, Tamilnadu, India. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2012; 6(6): 990–3.
    
    

109.109.Charles N, Thomas B, Watson B, Raja Sakthivel M, Chandrasekeran V, Wares F. Care seeking behavior of chest symptomatics: a community based study done in South India after the implementation of the RNTCP. PLoS One 2010; 5(9).
    
    

110.110.Suganthi P, Chadha VK, Ahmed J, et al. Health seeking and knowledge about tuberculosis among persons with pulmonary symptoms and tuberculosis cases in Bangalore slums. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2008; 12(11): 1268–73.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18926036&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

111.111.Smith LA, Bruce J, Gueye L, et al. From fever to anti-malarial: the treatment-seeking process in rural Senegal. Malaria Journal 2010; 9(333).
    
    

112.112.Ehsanul Huq K, Moriyama M, Zaman K, et al. Health seeking behaviour and delayed management of tuberculosis patients in rural Bangladesh. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18(1): 515.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F08%2F02%2F2024.08.01.24311159.atom) 

113.113.Ahmed SM, Rashidul H, Ubydul H, Awlad H. Knowledge on the transmission, prevention and treatment of malaria among two endemic populations of Bangladesh and their health-seeking behaviour. Malaria Journal 2009; 8(173).
    
    

114.114.Auer C, Kiefer S, Zuske M, et al. Health-seeking behaviour and treatment delay in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Switzerland: some slip through the net. Swiss Med Wkly 2018; 148: w14659.
    
    

115.115.Chadha VK, Praseeja P, Srivastava R, et al. Pre-treatment delay and out of pocket expenses by notified new tuberculosis patients in an Indian mega city. Indian J Tuberc 2022; 69(4): 446–52.
    
    

116.116.Ku CC, Chen CC, Dixon S, Lin HH, Dodd PJ. Patient pathways of tuberculosis care- seeking and treatment: an individual-level analysis of National Health Insurance data in Taiwan. BMJ Global Health 2020; 5(6).
    
    

117.117.Ukwaja KN, Alobu I, Nweke CO, Onyenwe EC. Healthcare-seeking behavior, treatment delays and its determinants among pulmonary tuberculosis patients in rural Nigeria: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research 2013; 13(25).
    
    

118.118.Pati S, Hussain MA, Chauhan AS, Mallick D, Nayak S. Patient navigation pathway and barriers to treatment seeking in cancer in India: a qualitative inquiry. Cancer Epidemiology 2013; 37(6): 973–8.
    
    

119.119.Hossain I, Hill P, Bottomley C, et al. Healthcare seeking and access to care for pneumonia, sepsis, meningitis, and malaria in rural Gambia. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2022; 106(2): 446–53.
    
    

120.120.Omale UI, Oka OU, Okeke IM, et al. Demand for malaria rapid diagnostic test, health care-seeking behaviour, and drug use among rural community members with fever or malaria-like illness in Ebonyi state, Nigeria: a cross-sectional household survey. BMC Health Services Research 2021; 21(1).
    
    

121.121.Price J, Willcox M, Dlamini V, et al. Care-seeking during fatal childhood illness in rural South Africa: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2021; 11(4).