Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
Int J Equity Health ; 23(1): 98, 2024 May 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38741119

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Almost one third of people affected by leprosy in Colombia suffer from disability, which often results from delayed diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to explore the experience of people affected by leprosy during the process of diagnosis and treatment and if and how this experience was influenced by peers. METHODS: A qualitative study using body map stories was conducted from October 2019 to February 2020 in Colombia. Adult people affected by leprosy were recruited through patient associations in different cities. We conducted three sessions with an average duration of 2-3 h per participant, during which the participants created a painted map of their body and chose symbols to represent their experience, while being engaged in an informal interview. The sessions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically by an interdisciplinary team, consisting of physicians, social workers and a person affected by leprosy. RESULTS: The 17 study participants (11 female) were aged 20 to 70 years. Leprosy-related manifestations ranged from no to advanced disability. Some participants were active members of associations for people affected by leprosy. Three main themes were identified during analysis: (1) A long pathway to diagnosis, (2) Therapy as a double-edged sword and (3) The influence of other people affected by leprosy. The participants described an often years-long process until being diagnosed, which was marked by insecurities, repeated misdiagnosis, and worsening mental and physical health. Delayed diagnosis was related to late health care seeking, but also to inadequate health communication, lack of leprosy-related knowledge and negligence among health care workers. A high desire to cure motivated the participants to take their medication rigorously, despite the high treatment burden. Support from peers, either within the own social environment or provided from associations, contributed to a faster diagnosis and increased therapy adherence. Peers helped to recognize the symptoms, urged patients to seek care, recommended physicians with leprosy-related knowledge and provided a realistic example of both disease severity and curability. CONCLUSION: People affected by leprosy experience a significant burden during the process of diagnosis and treatment. Involving well-trained peers could foster early diagnosis, treatment compliance and prevention of disability.


Assuntos
Hanseníase , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Humanos , Hanseníase/psicologia , Hanseníase/terapia , Hanseníase/diagnóstico , Colômbia , Feminino , Masculino , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Adulto Jovem , Diagnóstico Tardio/psicologia , Grupo Associado , Pessoas com Deficiência/psicologia
2.
Trop Med Infect Dis ; 9(5)2024 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38787034

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To achieve zero leprosy cases in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, we designed a community-based active detection and provision of single-dose rifampicin post-exposure prophylaxis (SDR-PEP) to household contacts with new leprosy patients. METHODS: From July to August 2021, we assessed the current knowledge, attitude, and practices through structured interviews and focus group discussions with community representatives and health staff. This was followed by sensitization sessions, the training of health staff, and the reinforcement of referral mechanisms. Teams, including health staff and community volunteers, visited all new leprosy patients detected in 2021-2023 and household contacts. RESULTS: Among 115 community representatives, knowledge about leprosy etiology was attributed to non-biological factors (74%); fear accounted for 77%, and access to care was perceived as weak (74%), but the outlook was improved by SDR-PEP (80%). Among the 217 health staff interviewed, the programmatic barriers identified were a lack of referral feedback (67%), limited supplies for diagnosis and prevention, and ineffective training (64%). We visited 70 new patients and 258 household contacts. The median age in household contacts was 25 years old; 49% were women, 98% were eligible for SDR-PEP, and all who were eligible accepted it. Those who were non-eligible included one tuberculosis patient and six newly detected leprosy patients (23‱). CONCLUSIONS: A community-based intervention was successful in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Misbeliefs and a lack of knowledge were identified as barriers. Programmatic components should be reinforced for SDR-PEP extension.

3.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis ; 15(3): e0009279, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33788863

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program explored the feasibility and impact of contact tracing and the provision of single dose rifampicin (SDR) to eligible contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. As the impact of the programme is difficult to establish in the short term, we apply mathematical modelling to predict its long-term impact on the leprosy incidence. METHODOLOGY: The individual-based model SIMCOLEP was calibrated and validated to the historic leprosy incidence data in the study areas. For each area, we assessed two scenarios: 1) continuation of existing routine activities as in 2014; and 2) routine activities combined with LPEP starting in 2015. The number of contacts per index patient screened varied from 1 to 36 between areas. Projections were made until 2040. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all areas, the LPEP program increased the number of detected cases in the first year(s) of the programme as compared to the routine programme, followed by a faster reduction afterwards with increasing benefit over time. LPEP could accelerate the reduction of the leprosy incidence by up to six years as compared to the routine programme. The impact of LPEP varied by area due to differences in the number of contacts per index patient included and differences in leprosy epidemiology and routine control programme. CONCLUSIONS: The LPEP program contributes significantly to the reduction of the leprosy incidence and could potentially accelerate the interruption of transmission. It would be advisable to include contact tracing/screening and SDR in routine leprosy programmes.


Assuntos
Busca de Comunicante/métodos , Hanseníase/epidemiologia , Hanseníase/prevenção & controle , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Prevenção Primária/métodos , Brasil , Humanos , Índia , Indonésia/epidemiologia , Hansenostáticos/uso terapêutico , Mianmar/epidemiologia , Nepal/epidemiologia , Profilaxia Pós-Exposição/métodos , Rifampina/uso terapêutico , Sri Lanka/epidemiologia , Tanzânia/epidemiologia
4.
s.l; s.n; 2021. 9 p. tab.
Não convencional em Inglês | HANSEN, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, CONASS, Hanseníase, SESSP-ILSLACERVO, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1146973

RESUMO

Background: Innovative approaches are required for leprosy control to reduce cases and curb transmission of Mycobacterium leprae. Early case detection, contact screening, and chemoprophylaxis are the most promising tools. We aimed to generate evidence on the feasibility of integrating contact tracing and administration of single-dose rifampicin (SDR) into routine leprosy control activities. Methods The leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme was an international, multicentre feasibility study implemented within the leprosy control programmes of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania. LPEP explored the feasibility of combining three key interventions: systematically tracing contacts of individuals newly diagnosed with leprosy; screening the traced contacts for leprosy; and administering SDR to eligible contacts. Outcomes were assessed in terms of number of contacts traced, screened, and SDR administration rates. Findings Between Jan 1, 2015, and Aug 1, 2019, LPEP enrolled 9170 index patients and listed 179 769 contacts, of whom 174782 (97·2%) were successfully traced and screened. Of those screened, 22 854 (13·1%) were excluded from SDR mainly because of health reasons and age. Among those excluded, 810 were confirmed as new patients (46 per 10 000 contacts screened). Among the eligible screened contacts, 1182 (0·7%) refused prophylactic treatment with SDR. Overall, SDR was administered to 151 928 (86·9%) screened contacts. No serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation Post-exposure prophylaxis with SDR is safe; can be integrated into different leprosy control programmes with minimal additional efforts once contact tracing has been established; and is generally well accepted by index patients, their contacts, and health-care workers. The programme has also invigorated local leprosy control through the availability of a prophylactic intervention; therefore, we recommend rolling out SDR in all settings where contact tracing and screening have been established(AU).


Assuntos
Rifampina/uso terapêutico , Profilaxia Pós-Exposição/métodos , Hanseníase/prevenção & controle , Estudos de Viabilidade , Programas de Rastreamento , Saúde Pública/métodos , Medicina de Precisão/métodos , Hansenostáticos/uso terapêutico
5.
s.l; s.n; 2021. 14 p. tab, graf.
Não convencional em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, HANSEN, CONASS, Hanseníase, SESSP-ILSLPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-ILSLACERVO, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1292662

RESUMO

The Leprosy Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program explored the feasibility and impact of contact tracing and the provision of SDR to eligible contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients in states or districts of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. This study investigated the long-term impact of the LPEP program on the leprosy new case detection rate (NCDR). Our results show that LPEP could reduce the NCDR beyond the impact of the routine leprosy control programme and that many new cases could be prevented. The benefit of LPEP increases gradually over time. LPEP could accelerate the time of reaching predicted NCDR levels of 2040 under routine program by up to six years. Furthermore, we highlighted how the impact varies between countries due to differences in the number of contacts per index patient screened and differences in leprosy epidemiology and national control programme. Generally, including both household contacts and neighbours (> 20 contacts per index patient) would yield the highest impact.


Assuntos
Humanos , Prevenção Primária/métodos , Busca de Comunicante/métodos , Profilaxia Pós-Exposição , Hanseníase/prevenção & controle , Hanseníase/epidemiologia , Rifampina/uso terapêutico , Sri Lanka/epidemiologia , Tanzânia/epidemiologia , Brasil , Programas de Rastreamento , Mianmar/epidemiologia , Índia , Indonésia/epidemiologia , Nepal/epidemiologia
6.
s.l; s.n; 2020. 9 p. ilus.
Não convencional em Espanhol | HANSEN, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, CONASS, Hanseníase, SESSP-ILSLPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-ILSLACERVO, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1146969

RESUMO

Objetivo: La profilaxis post-exposición de la lepra con dosis única de rifampicina (SDR-PEP) ha demostrado ser efectiva y aplicable y está recomendada por la OMS desde 2018. Esta caja de herramientas SDR-PEP se desarrolló a través de la experiencia de la profilaxis lepra post-eliminación (LPEP). Se ha diseñado para facilitar y estandarizar la implementación del seguimiento de contactos y la administración SDR-PEP en regiones y países que iniciaron la intervención. Resultados: Se desarrollaron cuatro instrumentos, incorporando la evidencia existente actual para SDR-PEP y los métodos y enseñanzas del proyecto LPEP en ocho países. (1) El conjunto de diapositivas Powerpoint política/apoyo que ayudarán a los programadores sobre la evidencia, practicabilidad y recursos necesarios para SDR-PEP, (2) La colección de diapositivas PowerPoint sobre formación e implementación en el campo para formar al personal implicado en el seguimiento de contactos y PEP con SDR, (3) manual genérico de campo SDR-PEP que puede ser usado para formar un protocolo específico de campo para el seguimiento de contactos y SDR-PEP como referencia para el personal directamente implicado. Finalmente, (4) el manual director SDR-PEP, que resume los distintos componentes de la caja de herramientas y contiene las instrucciones para su uso. Conclusión: En respuesta al interés manifestado por varios países de implementar el seguimiento de contactos de lepra con PEP con SDR, con las recomendaciones OMS sobre SDR-PEP, esta caja de herramientas basada en la evidencia concreta pero flexible, ha sido diseñada para servir a los directores de programas nacionales de lepra con un medio práctico para trasladar los planteamientos a la práctica. Está disponible gratuitamente en la página de Infolep y actualizada constantemente: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-post-exposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme(AU).


Objective: Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDRPEP) has proven effective and feasible, and is recommended by WHO since 2018. This SDR-PEP toolkit was developed through the experience of the leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis (LPEP) programme. It has been designed to facilitate and standardise the implementation of contact tracing and SDR-PEP administration in regions and countries that start the intervention. Results: Four tools were developed, incorporating the current evidence for SDRPEP and the methods and learnings from the LPEP project in eight countries. (1) the SDR-PEP policy/advocacy PowerPoint slide deck which will help to inform policy makers about the evidence, practicalities and resources needed for SDR-PEP, (2) the SDR-PEP field implementation training PowerPoint slide deck to be used to train front line staff to implement contact tracing and PEP with SDR, (3) the SDR-PEP generic field guide which can be used as a basis to create a location specific field protocol for contact tracing and SDR-PEP serving as a reference for frontline field staff. Finally, (4) the SDR-PEP toolkit guide, summarising the different components of the toolkit and providing instructions on its optimal use. Conclusion: In response to interest expressed by countries to implement contact tracing and leprosy PEP with SDR in the light of the WHO recommendation of SDRPEP, this evidence-based, concrete yet flexible toolkit has been designed to serve national leprosy programme managers and support them with the practical means to translate policy into practice. The toolkit is freely accessible on the Infolep homepages and updated as required: https://www.leprosy-information.org/keytopic/leprosy-postexposure-prophylaxis-lpep-programme(AU).


Assuntos
Profilaxia Pós-Exposição/métodos , Hansenostáticos/administração & dosagem , Hanseníase/prevenção & controle , Rifampina/administração & dosagem , Dose Única
7.
Trop Med Int Health ; 23(2): 193-198, 2018 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29230912

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To determine the average time in months between the beginning of symptoms and the diagnostic confirmation of leprosy by the health system and to investigate factors associated with diagnostic delay. METHODS: A total of 249 patients older than 15 years diagnosed with leprosy between 2011 and 2015, in 20 endemic municipalities of north-eastern Colombia, provided informed consent and were interviewed face-to-face. Clinical histories from health centres or hospitals where study participants were treated for leprosy were also reviewed. RESULTS: The mean delay in diagnosis of leprosy was 33.5 months. About 14.9% of patients showed a visible deformity or damage (disability grade 2, DG2) at the time of diagnosis. In multivariable regression analysis, five or more consultancies required to confirm the diagnosis and not seeking care immediately after noticing first symptoms were associated with longer diagnostic delay. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a significant delay in diagnosis of leprosy in north-eastern Colombia, which might explain the continuously high rate of DG2 among new cases being notified in the country. Both patient- and health system-related factors were associated with longer diagnostic delay. Interventions to increase awareness of disease among the general population and timely referral to a specialised health professional are urgently needed in our study setting.


Assuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/organização & administração , Diagnóstico Tardio/estatística & dados numéricos , Nível de Saúde , Hanseníase/diagnóstico , Adolescente , Adulto , Animais , Análise por Conglomerados , Colômbia , Pessoas com Deficiência/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Hanseníase/prevenção & controle , Masculino , Ratos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA