Volume 17, Number 3—March 2011
Letter
Diagnosis and Treatment of Tuberculosis in the Private Sector, Vietnam
Nguyen B. Hoa
, Frank G.J. Cobelens, Dinh N. Sy, Nguyen V. Nhung, Martien W. Borgdorff, and Edine W. Tiemersma
, Frank G.J. Cobelens, Dinh N. Sy, Nguyen V. Nhung, Martien W. Borgdorff, and Edine W. TiemersmaTable
Characteristics of patients treated for tuberculosis at time of prevalence survey (2006–2007) or in 2 preceding years, Vietnam*
| Characteristic | Public health facilities reporting to NTP, no. (%) | Public health facilities not reporting to NTP, no. (%) | Private sector, no. (%) | OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total |
316 (89.5) |
8 (2.3) |
29 (8.2) |
NA† |
| Sex | ||||
| M | 230 (92.4) | 4 (1.6) | 15 (6.0) | 1 |
| F |
86 (82.7) |
4 (3.8) |
14 (13.5) |
2.4‡ (1.0–5.6) |
| Age, y | ||||
| 15–35 | 51 (79.7) | 2 (3.1) | 11 (17.2) | 3.1 (1.3–7.4) |
| 35–55 | 134 (93.1) | 4 (2.8) | 6 (4.2) | 0.4 (0.1–0.9) |
| >55 |
131 (90.3) |
2 (1.4) |
12 (8.3) |
1.0 (0.4–2.3) |
| Area | ||||
| Urban | 95 (85.6) | 2 (1.8) | 14 (12.6) | 2.2 (0.9–5.1) |
| Remote | 59 (89.4) | 2 (3.0) | 5 (7.6) | 0.9 (0.3–2.5) |
| Rural |
162 (92.0) |
4 (2.3) |
10 (5.7) |
0.5 (0.2–1.2) |
| Zone | ||||
| Northern | 117 (93.6) | 5 (4.0) | 3 (2.4) | 0.2 (0.0–0.7) |
| Central | 50 (87.7) | 1 (1.8) | 6 (10.5) | 1.4 (0.4–3.8) |
| Southern |
149 (87.1) |
2 (1.2) |
20 (11.7) |
2.5 (1.1–6.5) |
| Socioeconomic status§ | ||||
| Lowest | 104 (91.2) | 2 (1.8) | 8 (7.0) | 0.8 (0.3–1.9) |
| Medium | 85 (90.4) | 2 (2.1) | 7 (7.4) | 0.9 (0.3–2.2) |
| Highest | 103 (88.0) | 2 (1.7) | 12 (10.3) | 1.5 (0.6–3.5) |
| No information | 24 (85.7) | 2 (7.1) | 2 (7.1) | NA¶ |
*NTP, National Tuberculosis Program; OR, odds ratio, CI, confidence interval; NA, not available.
†Not available because >4 categories are needed for calculation of OR.
‡For difference between private and public sectors. All other comparisons were for differences between 1 group and the other groups combined.
§Based on a set of indicators (7) and expressed by tertiles of expenditure distribution among all survey participants.
¶Not available because there were only 28 persons with no information.
