Faculty Bibliography

Background. Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant global public health problem with known gender-related (male versus female) disparities. We reviewed the qualitative evidence (written/spoken narrative) for gender-related differences limiting TB service access from symptom onset to treatment initiation. Methods. Following a systematic process, we searched 12 electronic databases, included qualitative studies that assessed gender differences in accessing TB diagnostic and treatment services, abstracted data, and assessed study validity. Using a modified "inductive coding" system, we synthesized emergent themes within defined barriers and delays limiting access at the individual and provider/system levels and examined gender-related differences. Results. Among 13,448 studies, 28 studies were included. All were conducted in developing countries and assessed individual-level barriers; 11 (39%) assessed provider/system-level barriers, 18 (64%) surveyed persons with suspected or diagnosed TB, and 7 (25%) exclusively surveyed randomly sampled community members or health care workers. Each barrier affected both genders but had gender-variable nature and impact reflecting sociodemographic themes. Women experienced financial and physical dependence, lower general literacy, and household stigma, whereas men faced work-related financial and physical barriers and community-based stigma. Conclusions. In developing countries, barriers limiting access to TB care have context-specific gender-related differences that can inform integrated interventions to optimize TB services.

In the last decade, many new rapid diagnostic tests for infectious diseases have been developed. In general, these new tests are developed with the intent to optimize feasibility and population health, not accuracy alone. However, unlike drugs or vaccines, diagnostic tests are evaluated and licensed on the basis of accuracy, not health impact (eg, reduced morbidity or mortality). Thus, these tests are sometimes recommended or scaled up for purposes of improving population health without randomized evidence that they do so. We highlight the importance of randomized trials to evaluate the health impact of novel diagnostics and note that such trials raise distinctive ethical challenges of equipoise, equity, and informed consent. We discuss the distinction between equipoise for patient-important outcomes versus diagnostic accuracy, the equity implications of evaluating health impact of diagnostics under routine conditions, and the importance of offering reasonable choices for informed consent in diagnostic trials.