ABSTRACT
Background To ensure patient-centered TB preventive treatment, it is important to consider factors that make it easier for patients to complete treatment. However, there is little published literature about patient preferences for different preventive treatment regimen options, particularly from countries with high tuberculosis burdens.
Methods We conducted a qualitative research study using a framework analysis approach to understand preventive treatment preferences among household contacts. We conducted three focus group discussions with 16 members of families affected by TB in Lima, Peru. Participants were asked to vote for preferred preventive treatment regimens and discuss the reasons behind their choices. Coding followed a deductive approach based on prior research, with data-driven codes added.
Results In total, 7 (44%) participants voted for 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine, 4 (25%) chose 3 months isoniazid and rifampicin, 3 (19%) chose 4 months rifampicin, and 2 (13%) chose 6 months isoniazid. Preferences for shorter regimens over 6 months of isoniazid were driven by concerns over “getting tired” or “getting bored” of taking medications, the difficulty of remembering to take medications, side effects, and interference with daily life. For some, weekly dosing was perceived as being easier to remember and less disruptive, leading to a preference for 3 months isoniazid and rifapentine, which is dosed weekly. However, among caregivers, having a child-friendly formulation was more important than regimen duration. Caregivers reported difficulty in administering pills to children, and preferred treatments available as syrup or dispersible formulations.
Conclusions There is demand for shorter regimens and child-friendly formulations for preventive treatment in a high-burden setting. Individual preferences differ, suggesting that patient-centered care would best be supported by having multiple shorter regimens available.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported through a grant from the Dubai Harvard Foundation for Medical Research to the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery - Dubai, and the National Institutes of Health (award 1DP2MD015102 to CMY). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report, or in the decision to submit for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health
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 was approved by the institutional review boards of Harvard Medical School and the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
