Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included observational and qualitative studies

From: Duration and determinants of delayed tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in high-burden countries: a mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis

Income group*

Country

Study population

Study design

Sample size and study

Newcastle–Ottawa scale score

HQ

MQ

LQ

Patient delay

LIC

Ethiopia

People with TB

Cross-sectional

216[24], 296[25], 360[26], 382[27], 398[28], 425[29], 605[30], 706[31], 924[32]

129[33], 201[34], 226[35]

 

People with presumptive TB

Case–control

838[36]

  

Cross-sectional

476[37], 843[38], 1006[39]

663[40], 763[41]

 

Mozambique

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

622[42]

 

Tanzania

People with TB

Cross-sectional

639[43]

206[44]

 

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

3388[45]

  

LMIC

Angola

People with TB

Cross-sectional

385[46]

  

Bangladesh

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

7280[47]

 

Cambodia

People with TB

Mixed-methods

 

96[48]

 

India

People with TB

Cross-sectional

216[49], 234[50]

150[51], 261[52]

 

People with TB (children)

Cross-sectional

 

175[53]

 

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

437[54]

  

Indonesia

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

194[55]

746[56]

 

Kenya

People with TB

Cross-sectional

  

230[57]

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

 

426[58]

 

Nigeria

People with TB

Cross-sectional

160[59], 450[60]

102[61]

 

Zambia

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

6708[62]

  

Zimbabwe

People with TB

Cross-sectional

383[63]

  

UMIC

Brazil

People with TB

Cross-sectional

139[64], 153[65]

97[66], 101[67], 199[68], 218[69], 304[70]

 

TB-HIV co-infection

Prospective cohort

201[71]

  

China

People with TB

Cross-sectional

314[72], 1126[73], 2280[74]

146[75], 259[76], 314[77], 323[78], 819[79], 1083[80]

 

Prospective cohort

 

202[81]

 

Retrospective cohort

4677[82], 10356[20]

75401[21]

 

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

 

1005[83]

 

Russia

People with TB

Cross-sectional

105[84]

  

South Africa

General population

Cross-sectional

 

1020[85]

 

People with presumptive TB

Cross-sectional

 

104[86]

 

TB-HIV co-infection

Prospective cohort

891[87]

  

Thailand

People with TB

Cross-sectional

443[88]

199[89]

 

Health system delay

LIC

Ethiopia

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

201[34]

 

Nigeria

People with TB

Cross-sectional

470[90]

  

LMIC

Angola

People with TB

Cross-sectional

385[46]

  

UMIC

Brazil

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

218[69], 304[70], 305[91]

 

China

People with TB

Cross-sectional

314[72]

146[75]

 

Prospective cohort

 

202[81]

 

Retrospective cohort

4677[82]

  

South Africa

TB-HIV co-infection

Cross-sectional

480[92]

  

Treatment delay

LIC

Tanzania

People with TB

Cross-sectional

1161[93]

  

LMIC

Bangladesh

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

123[94]

 

Cambodia

People with TB

Mixed-methods

 

96[48]

 

India

People with TB

Cross-sectional

234[50], 344[95]

150[51]

 

Mixed-methods

2027[96]

  

Retrospective cohort

662[97], 1800[98]

  

Zimbabwe

People with TB

Retrospective cohort

2443[99]

  

UMIC

China

People with TB

Cross-sectional

314[100]

  

Retrospective cohort

4677[82]

  

South Africa

People with TB

Cross-sectional

210[101]

  

Total delay

LIC

Ethiopia

People with TB

Cross-sectional

216[24], 296[25], 328[102], 382[27]

201[34]

 

Mozambique

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

622[42]

 

Tanzania

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

206[44]

 

LMIC

Bangladesh

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

7280[47]

 

India

People with TB

Cross-sectional

216[49], 289[103]

  

Retrospective cohort

656[104]

  

Indonesia

People with TB

Cross-sectional

 

1116[105]

 

Nigeria

People with TB

Cross-sectional

450[60]

  

Pakistan

People with TB

Cross-sectional

844[106]

252[107], 269[108]

 

UMIC

Brazil

People with TB

Case–control

242[109]

  

Cross-sectional

 

304[70]

 

South Africa

People with TB

Cross-sectional

210[101]

  

TB-HIV co-infection

Prospective cohort

891[87]

  

Thailand

People with TB

Cross-sectional

443[88]

  

Income group*

Country

Study population

Methods of analysis

Study and sample size

ConQual rating

CASP score§

Qualitative studies

    

LIC

Ethiopia

People with TB, contacts of people with TB, and health care workers

Phenomenological

analysis

5 IDIs and 2 FGDs [110]

HQ

HQ

People with TB

Thematic analysis

26 IDIs [111]

HQ

HQ

People with TB and policymakers

Thematic analysis

19 IDIs [112]

HQ

HQ

Mozambique

Caretakers of people with TB

Content analysis

35 IDIs [113]

HQ

HQ

Tanzania

People with TB and traditional healers

Content analysis

32 IDIs [114]

HQ

HQ

LMIC

Bangladesh

People with TB

Qualitative analysis

of open-ended

survey questions

229 interviews [115]

MQ

MQ

People with TB and health

care workers

Qualitative analysis

using apriori codes

24 IDIs [116]

HQ

HQ

Cambodia

People with TB, health care workers, and community volunteers

Thematic analysis

43 IDIs and 6 FGDs [48]

MQ

HQ

People with TB and the general population

13 FGDs [117]

HQ

HQ

India

Health care workers

Thematic analysis

16 IDIs [118]

HQ

HQ

People with TB

Not presented in the

article

76 IDIs [119], 75 structured interviews [96]

MQ

MQ

108 structured interviews [120]

MQ

HQ

Qualitative analysis of open-ended

survey questions

229 interviews [115]

MQ

MQ

People with TB and health care workers

Qualitative analysis

using apriori codes

19 IDIs [121]

MQ

HQ

Thematic analysis

71 IDIs [122]

HQ

HQ

Indonesia

People with TB and community volunteers

Thematic analysis

67 IDIs and 6 FGDs [123]

HQ

HQ

People with TB, TB survivors, village leaders, and community volunteers

Not presented in the

article

50 IDIs and 3 FGDs [124]

HQ

HQ

Nigeria

General population

Thematic analysis

56 IDIs [125]

MQ

HQ

Philippines

People with TB and the general population

Thematic analysis

22 IDIs and 3 FGDs [126]

HQ

HQ

Zambia

People with TB and community volunteers

Thematic analysis

30 IDIs and 6 FGDs [127]

MQ

HQ

Zimbabwe

People with presumptive TB

Grounded theory

20 IDIs [128]

HQ

HQ

UMIC

Brazil

Health care workers

Discourse analysis

16 IDIs [129]

MQ

HQ

People with TB

Content analysis

23 IDIs [130]

MQ

HQ

Thematic analysis

7 IDIs [131]

MQ

HQ

Discourse analysis

7 IDIs [132]

HQ

MQ

China

People with TB

Qualitative analysis of open-ended

survey questions

70 interviews [133]

MQ

MQ

People with TB (migrants)

Thematic analysis

34 IDIs [134]

MQ

HQ

People with TB (migrants), People with presumptive TB, and health care workers

Framework

approach

60 IDIs and 12 FGDs [135]

MQ

HQ

People with TB, health care workers, policymakers, and community volunteers

Thematic analysis

47 IDIs and 5 FGDs [136]

MQ

HQ

Russia

People with TB

Grounded theory

5 FGDs [137]

HQ

HQ

People with TB and health

care workers

32 IDIs and 11 participants in FGDs (number of FGDs not specified) [138]

HQ

HQ

South Africa

Contacts of people with TB, health care workers, policymakers, and people with TB (miners)

Thematic analysis

and grounded theory

104 applied ethnography using formal/informal IDIs, FGDs, field notes, and participant observations [139]

HQ

HQ

Health care workers, village

leaders, and researchers

Thematic analysis

12 IDIs [140]

HQ

HQ

People with TB

41 IDIs [141]

MQ

HQ

People with TB, contacts of people with TB, and health care workers

25 IDIs and 4 FGDs [142]

HQ

HQ

People with TB, the general population, and community volunteers

93 reports from participatory research and participants observation [143]

HQ

HQ

People with TB and general

population

Thematic analysis

and grounded theory

8 IDIs [144]

HQ

HQ

Thailand

People with TB (migrants) and health care workers

Thematic analysis

12 IDIs and 11 FGDs [145]

MQ

HQ

  1. Each number at the normal line of type in each cell referred to the sample size of each discrete study that shared the respective characteristics (country, study population, study design, and study quality). The number/s in bracket indicate the source article/s. Blank cells indicated that no studies of a particular set of characteristics were identified and included in this review
  2. CASP critical appraisal skills program; FGD focus group discussions; HQ high quality, IDI in-depth interviews; LIC low-income countries, LMIC lower-middle-income countries, LQ low quality; MQ moderate quality, TB tuberculosis, UMIC upper-middle-income countries,
  3. *Based on World Bank classification. Low-income economies—gross national income (GNI) per capita $1,025 or less in 2018; lower-middle-income economies—GNI per capita between $1,026 and $3,995; upper-middle-income economies—GNI per capita between $3,996 and $12,375
  4. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The highest possible score for cross-sectional studies was 10 (5 for selection, 2 for comparability, and 3 for outcome). The highest possible score for case–control studies was 9 (4 for selection, 2 for comparability, and 3 for exposure). The highest possible score for cohort studies was 9 (4 for selection, 2 for comparability, and 3 for exposure). Studies that scored 0–3 were regarded as LQ, 4–6 were regarded as MQ, and ≥ 7 were regarded as HQ
  5. All papers were pre-ranked (high, moderate, low), and the levels were adjusted according to the dependability and credibility of the findings. We pre-ranked all papers as high. The ranking remained high if the papers were regarded as dependable, and the findings were unequivocal. We downgraded the paper from high to moderate if the papers scored 3 or less in terms of dependability or scored a mix of unequivocal and credible in terms of credibility
  6. §CASP for qualitative study had 10 questions to appraise the paper critically. We gave a score of 1 if the paper fulfilled a criterion, 0.5 if we could not tell if the paper fulfilled a criterion, and 0 if it did not fulfil a criterion. A score of 0–5 equated to LQ study, a score of 6–7 equated to MQ study, and a score of ≥ 8 equated to HQ study