Background
Globally, over two million people die from tuberculosis (TB) each year [
1]. In South Africa, the incidence rate of TB is one of the highest in the world (approximately 960 per 100000 in 2007), but it is estimated that only 70% of patients are successfully treated [
1], despite the widespread use of directly observed therapy (DOT) to maintain treatment adherence. It is also estimated that approximately 73% of TB patients in South Africa are infected with HIV [
1]. Providing integrated treatment for TB and HIV could result in the more efficient use of human resources and more convenient and effective care for people living with these illnesses. The differing models of treatment used for these two diseases do not, though, facilitate easy solutions to integrating treatment at community level, suggesting that a change in treatment models is needed to improve their compatibility.
The ART community treatment model, which is based on intensive treatment counselling and preparation; self-supervised therapy; community-based lay treatment support; and regular follow-up by health professionals [
2] may have potential for the delivery of TB treatment. In South Africa, ART programmes achieve higher treatment adherence in selected settings (over 80% at six months [
3,
4]) than DOT programmes (approximately 60% in South Africa overall [
5]). Some of the reasons for poor adherence to TB treatment could include access to health care services; treatment side effects; beliefs about treatment and motivations to take it; conflicting priorities, for example the need to earn a living; discrimination and stigma; and social pressures not to take medication [
6]. In addition, systematic reviews have contested the effectiveness of DOT for both TB [
7] and ART [
8], although a recent trial shows some benefits of the approach for ART [
9]. While both TB and ART programmes use lay health workers, there is a stronger focus in the ART programme on patient rights, treatment preparation, motivation and social support [
10], sometimes referred to as an 'empowerment approach'. While the need to change treatment models and to better integrate care delivery for TB and HIV/AIDS is discussed widely, the focus is generally on the health care system as a whole, and much less on the experiences or attitudes of the staff who need to implement such programmes in their clinics or communities. As in many settings, providers in South Africa are already under considerable pressure in their workplace - clinics are often crowded and understaffed, have scarce resources, and there is insufficient time for communication with patients [
11‐
13]. This may affect providers' responses to new initiatives.
The City of Cape Town in South Africa recently piloted a new programme, based on the ART model, with the aim of improving TB treatment adherence. The aim of this paper was to explore provider perspectives of the implementation of the new TB treatment adherence model, the Enhanced Tuberculosis Adherence (ETA) programme, using the normalization process model as an analytic framework [
14].
Methods
The Enhanced Tuberculosis Adherence Programme (ETA)
The aim of the ETA was to improve TB treatment outcomes, through using patient centred care, supported self-administration of treatment, and a team approach to care delivery. The key parts of the programme are described in Table
1 and the tasks and responsibilities of nurses and lay health workers within the programme are described in Table
2. This article complements papers reporting how the programme was developed (Atkins, S, Lewin, S, Ringsberg, KC, Thorson, A: Developing a new model of tuberculosis treatment support in Cape Town, South Africa: A qualitative process analysis, submitted); the findings of a parallel interrupted time series study of the effects of the programme [
15]; and a study describing patient experiences [
16].
Table 1
Key components of the ETA programme and of DOT
Training: Standard nurse training for nurses; 5 day training for lay DOT supporters | Training: Additional 1 day induction to the ETA for nurses; additional 3 day induction to the programme for DOT supporters (now called treatment supporters); adherence counsellor training for ex-DOT supporters, including five days of programme training and five days of counselling training |
Patient is initiated onto directly observed therapy in the clinic (takes treatment once a day under supervision of the TB nurse) | Before initiating self-administered treatment, the patient is placed on directly observed therapy in the clinic for a short period (takes treatment once a day under the supervision of the TB nurse for approximately 2 weeks) to identify problems that might preclude self administration of treatment |
Mode of treatment delivery: directly observed therapy | Mode of treatment delivery: self administration at home with pill counts by treatment supporter |
Short information session about TB, and its treatment, given by the TB nurse | Trained lay adherence counsellor gives TB information to the participant in 3-4 counselling sessions, of half an hour each, focusing on treatment education, side effects, healthy living and adherence planning and TB and HIV |
No visits are made routinely to patients' homes | A treatment supporter conducts a home visit to document the patient's home circumstances and verify their address. TB contacts, immunocompromised persons and children under 5 years in the household are also referred to the clinic for testing and vaccinations |
No meeting of different role-players to discuss treatment support | Nurse, adherence counsellor and treatment supporter meet to discuss each patient's eligibility for self administration |
Patient can receive DOT in the workplace, or by visiting a DOT supporter in the community | Patient can take treatment in the workplace, or at a clinic, but can also obtain a one month supply of tablets from the clinic and self-supervise their treatment |
Nurse sees patient at diagnosis, for DOT, for 2/3 month sputum and at the end of treatment | Nurse sees patient at diagnosis, DOT for two weeks and, if the patient is eligible for self-administration, once per month until the end of treatment and for 2/3 month sputum and end of treatment sputum |
If the patient is placed on community based DOT, s/he visits a treatment supporter once a day to receive treatment. Maximum DOT supporter caseload is 30 patients per month. | If the patient is placed on the ETA model, a treatment supporter visits the patient three times in the first week and once a week thereafter to monitor treatment taking. Maximum treatment supporter caseload is 60 patients per month. |
No formal integration of family or friends into the treatment plan | Treatment "buddy" has an important role - s/he attends counselling and acts as a support and reminder to the patient. The buddy can be a friend, family member or neighbour of the patient |
Table 2
Tasks and responsibilities within the new programme
Professional nurses | • Diagnosing smear-positive pulmonary TB • Initiating patients on treatment • Providing initial directly observed therapy at clinic • Monitoring patient adherence • Monthly weighing, taking sputum samples, assessing problems. • Sending patients to adherence counsellors for counselling. • Dealing with referrals to the clinic. | • Completing patient-held records (white cards) with calendar to indicate sputum dates, and other clinic appointments • Keeping track of which treatment supporter is responsible for which patient • Checking home assessment and counselling sheets; signing patient off for treatment self-administration |
Adherence counsellors | • Informing patients of the programme • Counselling the patient and their buddy about TB, TB treatment, side effects of TB treatment, the importance of good adherence and promoting HIV counselling and testing • Reporting back to the team about patient's eligibility for the programme | • Filling in intervention register • Filling in counselling sheet • Filling in patient name, address and contact number for treatment supporters • Assigning treatment supporters to patients • Giving out home assessment forms |
Treatment supporters | • Conducting home assessments, identifying TB contacts and individuals at risk of contracting TB in the home and referring children under 5 years of age to the clinic to be assessed for TB treatment or TB preventive therapy • Reporting back to clinic team meetings on home assessments • Visiting patients and conducting pill counts after patient placed out: three times in the first week and once a week thereafter until the patient completes treatment • Reporting back to team meetings on patients that experience problems with taking treatment | • Filling in home assessment forms • Filling in referral forms • Filling in forms when patients are not available or have problems with their treatment • Filling in monitoring forms, including when patient was visited and dates for sputum smear testing |
Treatment buddy | • Attending 4 counselling sessions with patient • Supporting, motivating and reminding patients to maintain treatment adherence in the home | • Reporting problems that patients experience to treatment supporter or clinic |
The normalization process model
The normalization process model (NPM) is designed for understanding the processes of implementing a complex intervention, and understanding how interventions become workable and integrated into everyday work [
14]. The model focuses on the "operational work people do to enact a set of practices" [
17] and was chosen in order to highlight the experiences of staff in making the programme work in practice. The model also assists in making clear recommendations for future implementation. This was important as this programme was a pilot with a view to inform service decisions on whether and how to scale up the programme across the province. We anticipated that the model could provide insights regarding the factors that would lead to normalisation of the programme. The model has four main constructs as outlined in table
3 below.
Table 3
The Normalization Process Model
Interactional workability: how does the programme affect interactions between people and practices? | Congruence | What is dealt with within the interaction; what the work is; roles of each actor and the formal and informal rules governing the interaction |
| Disposal of work | The effects and goals of the interactions; how disagreements are minimised; when and where goals and outcomes should occur; and shared beliefs about the meaning and consequences of the work |
Relational integration: how does the programme relate to existing concepts and relationships? | Accountability | Knowledge and practices of the implementers; who has the knowledge, what contributions are required by participants and the formal and informal rules governing the distribution of knowledge |
| Confidence | Beliefs about the knowledge and practice required by the programme, including agreement about the sources of authoritative knowledge and practice, beliefs about the practical utility of the knowledge and practice |
Skill-set workability: how is the current division of work affected by the programme? | Allocation | Which tasks are performed by whom; including how these decisions are made, the distribution of resources, rewards linked to status and authority, formal and informal agreements about identification and appraisal of necessarily skills, and the definition and ownership of these skill-sets |
| Performance | The ability of the organisation and the people within it to organise and deploy the intervention, including staff training needs; formal and informal boundaries of competence of workers; the degree of autonomy assigned to them; and how they deliver services |
Contextual integration: how does the programme relate to the organisation in which it is set? | Execution | Practicalities of implementation; including funding, decisions on distribution of resources, costs and risks within the organisation; managerial decision-making on the taking up the intervention; and formal and informal mechanisms for its evaluation |
| Realisation | Allocation and ownership of responsibility for implementing the intervention, including the negotiations necessary to change existing systems and practices to make new ones possible; minimising disruption and risk; and how new resources are obtained and used in practice |
Study setting
The programme was implemented in five TB clinics in Cape Town, South Africa. Each clinic was staffed by one or two professional nurses, as well as lay workers (in this study called adherence counsellors or treatment supporters), who were employed and managed by a non-governmental organisation (NGO). A doctor was in attendance once or twice a week. These facilities had caseloads of between 400 and 1800 TB patients per year. All five clinics were located in low-income communities of mainly Xhosa speaking Africans.
Participants and sampling
All nurses (n = 6) and adherence counsellors (n = 6) working on the programme were asked to participate in interviews. All treatment supporters (approximately 85) were invited through adherence counsellors to participate in focus group discussions (FGDs). Table
4 details the interviews and FGDs conducted. These took place approximately four and nine months after the start of the intervention. Two nurses, three adherence counsellors and one group of treatment supporters were interviewed twice during the programme in order to establish whether their experience of the programme changed over time.
Table 4
Details of interviews and focus group discussions conducted
1 | Professional nurses | 0/2 | 4 INT |
| Adherence counsellors | 0/2 | 4 INT |
| Treatment supporters | 1/38 | 4 FGD |
2 | Adherence counsellors | 0/1 | 1 INT |
| Treatment supporters | 0/7 | 1 FGD |
3 | Professional nurses | 0/1 | 1 INT |
| Adherence counsellors | 0/1 | 2 INT |
| Treatment supporters | 0/7 | 2 INT |
4 | Professional nurses | 1/1 | 2 INT |
| Treatment supporters | 0/6 | 1 FGD |
5 | Professional nurses | 0/1 | 1 INT |
| Adherence counsellors | 0/1 | 1 INT |
| Treatment supporters | 0/5 | 1 FGD |
Total | | 2/71 | |
Data collection
Both the semi-structured interviews and FGD guides were thematic and focused on participants' perceptions of their tasks, including their views on the different parts of the programme; staff roles before and during the intervention; relationships with co-workers; and the challenges and successes of the programme. All individual interviews were conducted in English, at the participants' workplace. All except two interviews (at the nurse's request) were recorded digitally. Recordings were transcribed by a professional transcriber and checked for accuracy by the first author (SA). All FGDs were conducted in Xhosa (the local language) by an experienced FGD moderator with a background in social science at a venue convenient for treatment supporters. FGDs were transcribed and translated verbatim and checked for accuracy independently. No major discrepancies were found. In addition to interviews and FGDs, SA was present at clinics during implementation and was a participant observer in management level steering group meetings that discussed the implementation of the programme at intervention clinics.
Analysis
The principles of thematic content analysis were followed [
18]. Transcripts were initially read and re-read to gain familiarity with content. The transcripts were then transformed into condensed meaning units and coded openly. These codes were then organised under sub-categories, which were reviewed by all authors. After this, the transcripts were read again and the sub-categories refined. Sub-categories were then grouped under categories. These categories were examined and placed under headings according to the NPM [
14]. As the interview guide was open-ended and did not focus on the NPM, not all of the items within the NPM were mentioned in the interviews. Issues relating to the implementation of the intervention were added, based on participant observation of steering group meetings, and knowledge of the implementation from a wider evaluation [
19]. Validity in the study is increased through the use of multiple researchers from different disciplines to moderate data [
20].
Ethics
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Research Council and the US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta. All participants received informed consent forms which they read or had read to them. The voluntary nature of participation was emphasised, and interviews were assured of confidentiality and that their work or any benefits would not be affected by a decision not to participate. Participants in FGDs were asked to keep information within the group. All were provided refreshments, and treatment supporters were reimbursed for their transport costs (approximately R6/US$1 per person).
Discussion
We found a number of issues that could have promoted or inhibited the normalisation of the intervention in these clinics. The two main issues were the lack of an empowerment approach and the extent to which teamwork was embraced. These issues need to be addressed before the programme is implemented more widely.
The poor internalisation of the empowerment approach seemed to be one of the largest implementation barriers. There seemed to be a general cautiousness among health care providers regarding buying in to the programme's principles. While there have been longstanding calls for TB services to focus more on the needs of clients [
21,
22], previous research has indicated that patient centred care is difficult to entrench in TB clinics [
23‐
25]. There is some evidence that provider training can improve the patient centeredness of care [
26], but it is likely that the training for this intervention was too short to effect a change in approach.
There is also some evidence from systematic reviews that an empowerment approach may have benefits for patient care [
26,
27], and HIV treatment based on this approach appears to achieve good outcomes [
3,
4]. In this setting, however, distrust and power differentials between patients and staff remained important. Discussions with patients indicated that patients may not have become active participants in the treatment process, as intended by the programme [
16]. The intervention's limited effect on empowerment is also not surprising given the difficulties in relationships between TB patients and providers documented extensively elsewhere [
6,
28]. However, despite not achieving patient empowerment to a great degree, the programme did achieve outcomes that were not significantly different from the more coercive DOT approach [
15]. It is also possible that after a longer period of training and intervention, and proof of positive impacts, the empowerment approach would be easier for staff to embrace.
Though teamwork was a major positive influence on programme implementation at some clinics, it was often tempered by hierarchical relationships [
29]. As in previous research, treatment supporters felt undermined and maltreated [
30] and while team members all shared a common goal, power differences remained. This hierarchy may have its roots in the hierarchy present in medicine in general [
13] and may be difficult to modify. Problems with teamwork have been reported previously in similar settings [
13,
31].
Status differentials and hierarchical relationships within the clinic may also have contributed to high attrition rates for treatment supporters [
32], and therefore have complicated programme implementation. Other possible contributors to attrition include the working conditions as well as the loss of older lay health workers, who did not satisfy the entry criteria for the new project. While the lay health workers employed in the ETA were more literate, they may have been more likely to leave in search of other employment [
33]. Also, the older lay health workers may have been more skilled in maintaining caring relationships and providing the other intangible forms of support [
34] that are important to patients [
35].
Irregular payments to treatment supporters further contributed to difficulties in intervention implementation, and would need to be addressed if the programme were implemented more widely. Steady payments, and possibly hiring lay workers as formal employees of the health service, might assist in retaining staff. Other work suggests, though, that payment per se may be less important in reducing attrition and improving performance than ensuring that the expectations of both lay workers and programme managers, including with regard to incentives, are in alignment [
36]. Investments should also be made in other areas of lay health workers' work experience, for example in their personal safety.
The normalisation of the intervention into routine clinic care may have been further hampered by the challenge of embedding an empowerment-oriented approach and by problems with teamworking, which may have resulted in dilution of the original intervention or diversions from its original aims. However, other factors also could have impacted on the normalisation of the intervention, specifically those related to the performance, execution and realization of the programme. Though staff generally coped with the impact of the programme on their work, they all identified training needs and highlighted day-to-day challenges, especially in terms of the high attrition rates for lay health workers and space constraints within the clinics. All staff also noted their difficulties in managing issues related to HIV/AIDS that were raised by patients during consultations. Not surprisingly in a context with a high rate of TB-HIV co-infection [
37], patients do not compartmentalize the two diseases in the way that the health system does [
38] and staff encounter issues related to HIV when discussing TB treatment. Ensuring that one carer manages both diseases could also help alleviate human resource constraints [
39], and reduce duplication of effort. A positive influence to implementation was the introduction of a project manager, to whom staff turned when in need of training, stationery or general support. However, it is not clear whether the resources to employ a highly skilled manager would be made available in a wider roll-out of the programme. Overall, our data highlight the need for mentoring and supervision of staff at clinic level [
40].
Overall, the NPM [
14] assisted in identifying factors that affected the embedding of the programme within the clinics. The model provides a categorisation of the issues involved, which enables the development of recommendations for similar interventions. The challenge of implementing the NPM is that many of the categories within it overlap, and issues emerging from the interviews and FGDs may be closely interrelated and so may be difficult to assign to a single category. In addition, not all of the parts of the NPM could be addressed from the interview and focus group discussion data available; for example, nurses did not mention many issues related to the execution of the programme, possibly because they were not aware of decisions made at a higher managerial level. Observations therefore were used to supplement the model. Further work to develop tools and methods to assist in the use of the NPM would be helpful. It is also important to keep in mind that staff may have used the interviews and focus group discussions as an opportunity to raise their concerns regarding the new intervention programme, and so data on promoting factors may have been less forthcoming than data on inhibiting factors. However, the critical views of the programme expressed during data collection suggest that most participants were comfortable in expressing their opinions to the researcher.
Although staff highlighted many challenges, it is interesting to note that all clinics opted to continue with the ETA programme after conclusion of the pilot, suggesting that staff had formed positive opinions of the new approach. Further research needs to be conducted, however, to establish whether the effects of the programme are sustainable without the intensive monitoring systems used in the pilot. While these results have been obtained from a specific setting in South Africa, the implications of the findings could be applied more widely in settings with similar conditions. Table
6 includes a number of recommendations for further implementation.
Table 6
Recommendations concerning wider implementation of the programme
Interactional workability | More emphasis and training on the empowerment approach Increased attention to teambuilding |
Relational integration | Increased training and supervision on the implementation of the programme and regular feedback on programme progress |
Skill-set workability | Increased attention to issues related to hierarchical relationships within the clinics, and how problems caused by this could be dispelled Streamlining of administrative relationships |
Contextual integration | Attention to management structures, payment systems, facilities and space for the intervention Attention to lay health worker supply and attrition |
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, USA. We would like to acknowledge all the nurses, adherence counsellors and lay health workers who contributed to this study. In addition we would like to thank Judy Caldwell, Deanna Carter, Pren Naidoo and Karen Jennings from the City of Cape Town who initiated and managed the programme. We also thank the TB/HIV Care Association, in particular Ria Grant, Harry Hausler, Mavis Nonkunzi and Belinda Fortuin for their work on the programme.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
SA and SL conceptualised the study. SA, SL, KCR and AT all contributed to data analysis, and to editing the manuscript. SA prepared the main manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.