ABSTRACT
SETTING: Public health care facilities in Sonipat District, Haryana State, India. OBJECTIVES: To assess 1) the proportion of tuberculosis (TB) patients screened for diabetes mellitus (DM) and vice versa, 2) factors associated with screening, and 3) the enablers, barriers and solutions related to screening. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study with quantitative (cohort study involving record reviews of patients registered between November 2016 and April 2017) and qualitative (interviews of patients, health care providers [HCPs] and key district-level staff) components. RESULTS: Screening for TB among DM patients was not implemented, despite documents indicating that it had been. Of 562 TB patients, only 137 (24%) were screened for DM. TB patients registered at tertiary and secondary health centres were more likely to be screened than primary health centres. Low patient awareness, poor knowledge of guidelines among HCPs, lack of staff and inadequate training were barriers to screening. Enablers were the positive attitude of HCPs and programme staff. The key solutions suggested were to improve awareness of HCPs and patients regarding the need for screening, training of HCPs and wider availability of DM testing facilities. CONCLUSION: The implementation of bidirectional screening was poor. Adequate staffing, regular training, continuous laboratory supplies for DM diagnosis and widespread publicity should be ensured.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Despite a widespread public health system, the private healthcare sector is the major provider of health care in rural India. This study describes the profile and medical practices of private rural health providers (PRHPs) in rural Haryana, India. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among PRHPs practicing in the villages of Comprehensive Rural Health Services Project (CRHSP) at Ballabgarh block located in the Faridabad district of Haryana State. The CRHSP is an Intensive Field Practice Area (IFPA) of the Centre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. RESULTS: Eighty PRHPs participated in this study (response rate 93%). The majority (96%) did not possess a qualification in any formal system of medicine. Half of the PRHPs had a separate space (private area) for the examination of patients. Almost all had stethoscopes, thermometers and blood pressure apparatus. The PRHPs were involved in a wide range of practices, such as dispensing medicines (98.7%), providing injections (98.7%) and intravenous fluids (98.7%), and conducting minor surgery (78.5%). Dumping biomedical waste was a common practice among these practitioners. Some PRHPs (8.7%) were involved in national health programs. CONCLUSIONS: Unqualified PRHPs provide substantial outpatient healthcare services in rural Ballabgarh, India. Their biomedical waste disposal practices are inadequate. There is a need for training in waste disposal practices and monitoring of safe injection techniques among PRHPs. Consideration should be given to utilising PRHPs in important public health programs such as disease surveillance.
