A Population-Based Study of Research Article: Knowledge About Tuberculosis Between Rural And Urban Area Among Women Aged 15-49 Years Old In Burkina Faso

AUTHORS

Ziemlé Clément Méda1*, Moctar Ouédraogo 2, Maurice Yaogo 2, Rasmané Ganaba 2, Henri Somé 2, Issiaka Sombié 3,4 and Nicolas Méda 2,5,6.

Ministry of Health, Burkina Faso

Agence de Formation, de Recherche et d’Expertise en Santé pour l’Afrique, Burkina Faso

Research Office of West African Health Organization (WAHO), Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

National Institute of Health Sciences, Polytechnic University, Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

Centre de recherche Muraz, Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso

Département de Santé Publique, Unité de Formation et de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé de l’Université de Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

*Corresponding author: Ziemlé Clément Méda, Ministry of Health, Burkina Faso.

 Email: mailto:medacle1@yahoo.fr

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB), in all its forms, poses a serious, demonstrable threat to the health of countless individuals as well as to health as a public good [1]. TB is stated a disease of male sex in two third of cases and concerns in around 75% of cases the economically productive age group which is between 15 and 50 years old [2]. Several studies showed that the sex ratio is in favor of male among TB diagnosed patients [3-6]. Beyond this aspect, several studies are conducted and showed the gender difference among TB patients [7-13]. In the general population, it was the same finding from different authors [14-16]. World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that men are more likely to have latent TB, whilst women are more likely to develop active disease [7].

According to WHO, tuberculosis is the third leading cause of death for women worldwide [17], mainly in developing countries affecting women aged 15-49 year old [18]. In 2008, 3.6 million women have developed TB [18, 19], and approximately another 500,000-700,000 died from TB [19, 20], including 200 000 women with HIV [19].

A lot of misconceptions exist about TB [14, 16, 21-26]; these misconceptions are due to knowledge, attitude, perception and practices about TB at the patient level and in the community. Thus, there is heavy impact of the culture which increases the aspect of the gender that takes women are vulnerable and subject to stigma [17]. Consequently, concealment of disease is to avoid losing social status, fear for marital problems and hurtful behavior by the community [27]. TB in women can have serious repercussions for families and households [28].

Regarding knowledge about TB, men had a significantly higher knowledge score than women [16]. As well, men (38.7%) were more knowledgeable than females (31.4%) [29]. The same finding was observed in Pakistan, mainly in rural setting [14]. According to Wang et al, among the general population, women were less likely to learn information ab Shetty N out TB and share it with others on their own initiatives [15]. However, there is yet no study conducted within the restrictive and specific group such as women in Burkina Faso. Moreover, there is no information data about TB at the level of Demography and Health Survey (DHS). This study identified potential determinants of knowledge of TB among women aged 15-49 years-old in the general population of Burkina Faso, specifically looking for the comparison between rural and urban setting.

Materials and Methods

Type of study, setting and sample size calculation

The study was based on household survey using the sampling method of the General Census 2006 [30], applied for the Global Found Evaluation 2008 for TB, Malaria and HIV in Burkina Faso. Burkina Faso is made up of 13 health regions and 63 Health Districts (HD), with 80% of the population living in rural setting. One HD was selected from each health region to get a total of 13 HD included in this sample after rational choice based on the place of residence (rural vs. urban area) and exposure to the interventions under the evaluation (using high, middle and low scale). The unity was the cluster area. The first stage was to draw off 25 cluster areas using a proportional probability based on the population size for each HD. At the second stage, it was the draw of 25 households from the list of households gotten from the first stage. Any woman in these households that met the study criteria was included in the study.

Study planning, research approval and recruitment of participants

The study was conducted from February to April 2008. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee from Burkina Faso. The inclusion criteria were met when the participant was woman aged 15-49 years-old and living in the study setting.

Formative research and data collection

After getting the informed consent from the participant, face to face interview was conducted using a structured questionnaire in two parts: household questionnaire and individual questionnaire. The present study has used the individual questionnaire which included: the characteristics of the participants, the section related to reproduction, the antenatal care and assisted delivery, the health of children including TB aspects, the marriage and sexual activities, and the HIV/AIDS section. These questionnaires were those used during the DHS and adapted for the present evaluation. The focus of this study was on TB aspects.

The independent variables were socio-demographic and economic status, information given by health worker, know where it is possible to diagnose TB, TB can be cured, keep secret when family member gets TB, and the main source of information about TB (Table 2 and 4). The dependent variable was total TB knowledge (15 questions ranged 0 to 15) generated from TB knowledge transmission (5 questions ranged 0 to 5) and TB symptoms knowledge (10 questions ranged 0 to 10), in Table 3.

Before conducting the survey, the interviewers were selected based on their experience in conducting household survey, on their education level, and the language of each setting. Interviewers were trained on how to fill the questionnaire, how to use the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) with the mobile software CSPro under the supervision of SERPR expert. In addition, a pre-test has permitted to review the coherence and the internal control of the database in order to reduce bias effect.

Data entry and analysis

The data was directly entered on the spot during data gathering using the PDA equipped with the software CSPro. The fusion and validation of the data were done under the supervision of the SERPRO.
The dataset was analyzed by SPSS/PC statistical package, version 17.0. The cut-off point for continuous variables was the median. The level of significance was 0.05. The comparison of the variables between rural and urban participants used chi-square test for independent samples when it was categorical data and t-test for independent samples when it was continuous. Dummy variables were created for the regression models building about marital status, wealth status, keep secret when family member gets TB, and TB can be cured. Then, simple and multiple step-wise linear regression models have been used to identify predictors of total TB-knowledge.

Results

Participants and samples size of the study

A total of 325 clusters areas were taken from the 13 HD. Secondly, a total of 8 049 households were selected of which 7 938 (98.6%) were found during the data collection period. Among the 7 938 households, 99.2% were interviewed. From the 7 914 interviewed households, 9496 women aged 15-49 years-old were eligible for the interview using the structured questionnaire. Among them, 9 131 women were interviewed with a response rate of 96.0% (Table 1).

Results

 

Type of health districts and degree of exposure to the intervention

Place of residence

High exposure to the intervention

Middle exposure to the intervention

Low exposure to the intervention

Total

Urban

Rural

Ouaga-dougou

Dia-paga

Djibo

Ouar-gaye

S/

total

Bobo Dioula-sso

Bou-sse

Diebou-gou

Manga

Sin-

dou

S/

total

Ouahi-gouya

Kon-goussi

Leo

Nou-na

S/

total

 

 

Household survey

 

 

 

Households selected

2906

5143

589

625

615

625

2454

623

625

622

624

624

3118

625

624

617

611

2477

8049

 

Households identified

2856

5082

569

624

601

625

2419

611

620

618

620

614

3083

616

607

610

603

2436

7938

 

Household interviewed

2837

5079

557

624

599

625

2405

609

619

618

620

614

3080

612

607

610

602

2431

7916

 

Response rate of households

99.3

99.9

97.9

100.0

99.7

100.0

99.4

99.7

99.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.9

99.4

100.0

100.0

99.8

99.8

99.7

 

 

Individual survey of women

 

Number of eligible women

3486

6010

704

726

643

764

2837

744

840

665

752

784

3785

782

685

788

619

2874

9496

 

Number of eligible and interviewed women

3359

5772

675

724

601

755

2755

720

795

622

723

771

3631

766

612

761

606

2745

9131

 

Response rate of eligible women

96.4

96.0

95.9

99.7

93.5

98.8

97.1

96.6

94.6

93.5

96.1

98.3

95.9

98.0

89.3

96.6

97.9

95.5

96.2

 

                                           

 

Table 1. The original sample size, sampling and setting of the Global Found evaluation (TB, Malaria, HIV)

 

From the Table 1, there were 9,131 participants entered in the dataset of the Global Fund Evaluation 2008 for TB, Malaria and HIV in Burkina Faso. After eligibility and enrollment criteria were met for the present study and missing data checked, the sample size under the study was 5,495 participants out of which 2,946 (53.6%) were from rural setting and 2,549 (46.4%) from urban setting (table 2, 3 and 4). All participants (100%) heard at least once about tuberculosis.

 

 

Area

X2 or t-test

p

Rural

n=2946

Urban

n=2549

Total

n=5495

Age group

 

 

 

 

 

More than or equal 28.2

1564 (53.1)

1059 (41.5)

2623 (47.7)

72.525

<0.001

Less than 28.2

1382 (49.9)

1490 (58.5)

2872 (52.3)

Ever attend school

 

 

 

 

 

No

2612 (88.7)

1584 (62.1)

4196 (76.4)

530.997

<0.001

Yes

334 (11.3)

965 (37.9)

1299 (23.6)

Marital status

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, currently married

1953 (66.3)

1587 (62.3)

3540 (64.4)

216.282

<0.001

Yes, living with a man

587 (19.9)

259 (10.2)

846 (15.4)

Single

406 (13.8)

703 (27.6)

1109 (20.2)

Ethnic group

 

 

 

 

 

Mossi

1196 (40.6)

1443 (56.6)

2639 (48.0)

139.744

<0.001

Other ethnic groups

1750 (59.4)

1106 (43.4)

2856 (52.0)

Religion

 

 

 

 

 

Muslim

1527 (51.8)

1772 (69.5)

3299 (60.0)

177.395

<0.001

Other religion and without religion

1419 (48.2)

777 (30.5)

2196 (40.0)

Wealth index factor

 

 

 

 

 

Poor

1336 (45.3)

777 (30.5)

2113 (38.5)

154.106

<0.001

Middle

523 (17.8)

437 (17.1)

960 (17.5)

Rich

1087 (36.9)

1335 (52.4)

2422 (44.1)

Mean of wealth status ±SD

6.2±4.6

8.6±6.7

7.3±5.8

15.215

<0.001

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the participants by urban and rural area

 

            Knowledge characteristics

Area

X2 or t-test

p

Rural

n=2946

Urban

n=2549

Total

n=5495

Knowledge transmission components about TB

1.Through air when coughing or sneezing

No

2032 (69.0)

1152 (45.2)

3184 (57.9)

316.161

<0.001

Yes

914 (31.0)

1397 (54.8)

2311 (42.1)

2.Through sharing utensils

No

1604 (54.4)

1397 (54.8)

3001 (54.6)

0.057

0.811

Yes

1342 (45.6)

1152 (45.2)

2494 (45.4)

3.Through touching a person with TB

No

2591 (87.9)

2197 (86.2)

4788 (87.1)

3.617

0.057

Yes

355 (12.1)

352 (13.8)

707 (12.9)

Through food

No

1917 (65.1)

1633 (64.1)

3550 (64.6)

.563

0.453

Yes

1029 (34.9)

916 (35.9)

1945 (35.4)

4.Through sexual contact

No

2847 (96.6)

2493 (97.8)

5340 (97.2)

6.332

0.012

Yes

99 (3.4)

56 (2.2)

155 (2.8)

5.Through mosquito bites

No

2936 (99.7)

2541 (99.7)

5477 (99.7)

0.027

0.868

 

Yes

10 (0.3)

8 (0.3)

18 (0.3)

Sum Knowledge transmission

>5

217 (7.4)

464 (18.2)

681 (12.4)

146.832

<0.001

 

<=5

2729 (92.6)

2085 (81.8)

4814 (87.6)

                                            Mean ± SD

 

4.4±1.0

4.6±1.0

4.5±1.0

8.505

<0.001

Knowledge symptoms components about TB

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.Coughing for several weeks            

                                                           

No

1887 (64.1)

1584 (62.1)

3471 (63.2)

2.064

0.151

Yes

1059 (35.9)

965 (37.9)

2024 (36.8)

2.Fever                                                  

                                                            

No

2761 (93.7)

2416 (94.8)

5177 (94.2)

2.635

0.105

Yes

185 (6.3)

133 (5.2)

318 (5.8)

3.Blood in sputum                                

                                                            

No

2571 (87.3)

2175 (85.3)

4746 (86.4)

4.220

0.040

Yes

375 (12.7)

374 (14.7)

749 (13.6)

4.Loss of appetite                                 

                                                            

No

2764 (93.8)

2361 (92.6)

5125 (93.3)

2.933

0.087

Yes

182 (6.2)

188 (7.4)

370 (6.7)

5.Night sweating                                   

No

2928 (99.4)

2534 (99.4)

5462 (99.4)

0.012

0.914

Yes

18 (0.6)

15 (0.6)

33 (0.6)

6.Chest pain                                          

                                                            

No

2504 (85.0)

2341 (91.8)

4845 (88.2)

60.707

<0.001

Yes

442 (15.0)

208 (8.2)

650 (11.2)

7.Tiredness /fatigue                             

                                                            

No

2728 (92.6)

2414 (94.7)

5142 (93.6)

9.714

0.002

Yes

218 (7.4)

135 (5.3)

353 (6.4)

8. Loss of weight                                        

                                                            

No

2445 (83.0)

2142 (84.0)

4587 (83.5)

0.996

0.318

Yes

501 (17.0)

407 (16.0)

908 (16.5)

9.Lethargy                                             

No

2929 (99.4)

2535 (99.5)

5464 (99.4)

0.019

0.891

Yes

17 (0.6)

14 (0.5)

31 (0.6)

10.Large swelling in the neck               

                                                            

No

2926 (99.3)

2538 (99.6)

5464 (99.4)

1.082

0.298

Yes

20 (0.7)

11 (0.4)

31 (0.6)

Sum Knowledge symptoms                   <1

1146 (38.9)

1023 (40.1)

2169 (39.5)

0.819

0.365

                                                                  >=1

1800 (61.1)

1526 (59.9)

3326 (60.5)

 

 

                                          Mean ± SD

0.96±1.0

1.0±1.1

0.99±1.1

-2.187

0.029

Total TB Knowledge                               >5

1203 (40.8)

1258 (49.4)

2461 (44.8)

39.751

<0.001

                                                    <=5

1743 (59.20

1291 (50.6)

3034 (55.2)

                                          Mean ± SD

5.4±1.2

5.5±1.3

5.5±1.2

4.820

<0.001

               

Table 3. Knowledge variables by urban and rural area

 

 

Area

X2 or t-test

p

Rural

n=2946

Urban

n=2549

Total

n=5495

Information given by health worker

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

668 (22.7)

637 (25.0)

1305 (23.7)

3,919

0.048

No

2278 (77.3)

1912 (75.0)

4190 (76.3)

Knows where it is possible to diagnose TB

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

1741 (59.1)

1926 (75.6)

3667 (66.7)

166.079

<0.001

No

1205 (40.9)

623 (24.4)

1828 (33.3)

TB can be cured

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

1957 (66.4)

1924 (75.5)

3881 (70.6)

60.883

<0.001

No

342 (11.6)

176 (6.9)

518 (9.4)

Don't know

647 (22.0)

449 (17.6)

1096 (19.9)

Keep secret when family member gets TB

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, remain a secret

99 (3.4)

101 (4.0)

200 (3.6)

3.148

0.207

No

2793 (94.8)

2413 (94.7)

5206 (94.7)

Don't know / not sure / depends on

54 (1.8)

35 (1.4)

89 (1.6)

Main source of information about TB

 

 

 

 

 

Radio

559 (19.0)

611 (24.0)

1170 (21.3)

682.530

<0.001

Television

26 (0.9)

297 (11.7)

323 (5.9)

Discussion sessions

560 (19.0)

410 (16.1)

970 (17.7)

Association/NGO

13 (0.4)

19 (0.7)

32 (0.6)

Friends

1038 (35.2)

429 (16.8)

1467 (26.7)

Health centers

382 (13.0)

308 (12.1)

690 (12.6)

Schools

132 (4.5)

387 (15.2)

519 (9.4)

Others

236 (8.0)

88 (3.5)

324 (5.9)

Table 4. Other factors by urban and rural area

Knowledge on TB among women aged 15-49 years-old

The mean total TB knowledge was 5.5±1.2 (ranged 1 to 11). Significantly, participants from urban setting had better mean total TB knowledge than those from rural setting (rural5.4±1.2 vs. urban 5.5±1.3, p<0.001).

Participants answered that TB can be caught through air when coughing or sneezing (urban 54.8% vs. rural 31.0%, p<0.001), the most known symptom; through sexual contact (urban 2.2% vs. rural 3.4%, p=0.012). Moreover, participants thought that TB can be contagious through utensils sharing (urban 45.2% vs. rural 45.6%, p=0.881); through food (urban 35.9% vs. rural 34.9%, p=0.453); through touching a person infected with TB (urban 13.8% vs. rural 12.1%, p=0.453); and through mosquito bites (urban 0.3% vs. rural 0.3%, p=0.868). The mean knowledge index of TB transmission was significantly higher in urban setting than rural setting (urban 4.6±1.0 vs. rural 4.4±1.0, p<0.001).

About knowledge of TB symptoms, participants cited symptoms with significant difference between rural and urban setting: blood in sputum (urban 14.7% vs. rural 12.7%, p=0.040), chest pain (urban 15.0% vs. rural 8.2%, p<0.001), and fatigue (urban 7.4% vs. rural 5.3%, p=0.002). However, the other symptoms were not significantly different between rural and urban areas: coughing for several weeks (urban 35.9% vs. rural 37.9%, p=0.151), fever (urban 6.3% vs. rural 5.2%, p=0.105), loss of appetite (urban 6.2% vs. rural 7.4%, p=0.087), night sweating (urban 0.6% vs. rural 0.6%, p=0.914), weight loss (urban 17.0% vs. rural 16.0%, p=0.318), lethargy (urban 0.6% vs. rural 0.5%, p=0.891), and large swelling in the neck (urban 0.7% vs. rural 0.4%, p=0.298). The mean knowledge index of TB symptoms was significantly higher in urban setting than rural setting (rural 0.96±1.0 vs. urban 1.0±1.1, p=0.029).

Study results showed that the “information was given by health worker” was significantly different between rural and urban areas (p=0.048). They knew where it is possible to diagnose TB with better proportion in rural setting than urban setting (p<0.001). As well, they answered that they will not keep secret when family member gets TB at 94.8% in rural setting and 94.7% in urban setting (p=0.207). Moreover, 66.4% participants from rural and 75.5% from urban setting knew that “TB can be cured” (p<0.001).

The main source of information about TB was radio broadcasting (21.3%) in urban setting and friends (35.2%) in rural setting. 

Mean and proportion differences of other factors between rural and urban setting

From the tables 2, 3 and 4, the determinants of difference between rural and urban setting were: age group, educational status, religion, marital status, wealth index factor, “information given by health worker”, “know where it is possible to diagnose TB”, “TB can be cured”, and the “main source of information on TB”.

Predictive factors of total TB knowledge using linear regression models

From the univariate analysis stage (Table 5), the predictors of total TB knowledge were: area, marital status (currently in union vs. living in union and single), wealth factor in index, “information given by health worker”, “know where it is possible to diagnose TB”, and “TB can be cured”. Some factors were not predictors of total TB knowledge such as age group, education status, religion, and “keep secret when family member gets TB”.

Regarding adjusted analysis (Table 5), the total TB knowledge was positively correlated with the setting (β: 0.094; 95%CI: 0.021 to 0.166) and with “TB can be cured” (β: 0.277; 95%CI: 0.188 to 0.366). In contrary, TB knowledge was negatively correlated with marital status (β: -0.224; 95%CI: -0.323 to -0.125), and with “know where it is possible to diagnose TB” (β: -0.192; 95%CI: -0.268 to -0.116). It was not correlated with “information given by health worker” and wealth index.

 

 

Unadjusted analysis

Adjusted analysis

Independent variables

β

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

p

β

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

p

Area (ref: rural)

0.163

0.097

0.229

<0.001*

0.094

0.021

0.166

0.011*

Age group (ref: less than 28.2)

0.036

-0.030

0.102

0.291

 

 

 

 

Religion (ref: Muslim)

-0.046

-0.113

0.021

0.180

 

 

 

 

Ethnic group (ref: other ethnic group)

-0.063

-0.130

0.003

0.060

 

 

 

 

Ever attend school (ref: No)

0.072

-0.005

0.150

0.068

 

 

 

 

Information given by health worker (ref: Yes)

-0.119

-0.196

-0.041

0.003*

-0.048

-0.126

0.030

0.229

Knows where it is possible to diagnose TB (ref: Yes)

-0.296

-0.366

-00.226

<0.001*

-0.192

-0.268

-0.116

<0.001*

Marital status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not in union vs. currently in union or living with (ref: currently in union or living in union)

0.026

-0.056

0.109

0.531

 

 

 

 

Currently in union vs. Living in union and single (ref: currently in union)

0.137

-0.206

-0.068

<0.001*

-0.224

-0.323

-0.125

<0.001*

Wealth index factor

0.009

0.003

0.014

0.003*

0.004

-0.001

0.010

0.130

Wealth status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poorest vs. Middle and richest (ref: Poorest)

0.063

-0.005

0.131

0.070

 

 

 

 

Wealth status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poorest and middle vs. Richest (ref: Poorest and middle)

0.058

-0.009

0.124

0.089

 

 

 

 

Keep secret when family member gets TB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No and unknown vs. Yes (ref: No and unknown)

-0.008

-0.184

0.168

0.931

 

 

 

 

Yes and unknown vs. No (ref: No)

-0.074

-0.222

0.074

0.325

 

 

 

 

TB can be cured

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No and unknown vs. Yes (ref: No and unknown)

0.311

0.239

0.383

<0.001*

0.277

0.188

0.366

<0.001*

Yes and unknown vs. No (ref: No)

0.095

-0.017

0.208

0.097

 

 

 

Table 5. Linear regression analysis results with total tuberculosis knowledge as dependent variable.
                                                                      Discussion
The objective of the present study was to identify predictive factors of knowledge about tuberculosis from group of women aged 15-49 years old in Burkina Faso, specifically the comparison between rural and urban setting. For that, the study has used a large scale-up, in restrictive group based on women aged 15-49 years old, a first study in this field. It was not looking for the health seeking behaviors.

The present study has shown that all participants (100%) heard about TB. The same trend was found in a study done in rural area of China with 92% of cases from community [15].

The mean of total TB knowledge was lower in both rural and urban settings in the present study. A study done on knowledge about pulmonary tuberculosis and choice of treatment supervisors among community from northern Ethiopia, has observed that knowledge score of pulmonary TB was lower among women, illiterate and rural residents [31].

About the transmission, the mode of transmission by airborne route was known at 65.7% in Vietnam [16]. In the present study, 12.4% of the participants had a high knowledge score about TB transmission. In China and Vietnam, respectively 91.6% and 87.1% of women said that TB was transmissible.

Among women, the knowledge of symptoms of pulmonary TB (cough=33.1%, fever=33.1%, chest pain=7.3%, loss of weight=17.4% and haemoptysis=17.3%) from a study done in Vietnam [16] was the same as the present study. In a study done in Iraq, the cough blood was the most noted symptom followed by fever for men and women in

general population [32]; it was chronic cough followed by loss of weight in this study and in Tanzania [33].

A study done in Tanzania found that TB is treatable at 72% in the population including men and women [34]. The present study shown that 70.6% of participants thought TB can be cured. As well, women thought that TB was treatable for 69.6% of women in Vietnam [16].

With regards to place for TB diagnosis and treatment, 57.8% of women in China correctly answered [15]. It was 66.6% of participants in the present but only related to the place for TB diagnosis.

The main sources of TB information were friends followed by radio broadcasting in the present study. It was television (59.9%) followed by friends/relatives (46.2%) among women in Vietnam [16]. In Tanzania, friends and relatives were the main source of TB information in the community [33].

Some factors were identified as predictors of TB knowledge. In Vietnam, sex, age, occupation, economic classification, education, and marital status were found as predictors of TB knowledge [16]. In the present study, total TB knowledge was predicted by the setting, marital status (currently in union vs. living in union and single), “know where it is possible to diagnose TB” and “TB can be cured”. It was not correlated with education, “information given by health worker” and wealth factor in index. Among the general population comprising men and women of Metro Manila (Philippines), a higher score of general knowledge was independently associated with college education: OR= 4.35; 95%CI 2.87–6.60 with P< 0.001 [34].

Conclusion

Through household survey method, the study provided information about factors regarding knowledge of TB with statistic difference between rural and urban area among women. As well, the study identified factors regarding knowledge of TB: setting, know where to diagnose TB, marital status, know TB can be cured. According to Dale et al., there is a need of more effective tuberculosis control interventions which requires novel methods of accessing women and less educated people [35]. Focus on women, the knowledge score of TB was lower group of Women 15-49 years old, specifically in rural setting in the present study. As said by Mangesho et al, an intensive appropriate community health education is required for a positive behavioral change in tuberculosis control [33].

The identified influential factors are important considerations to be incorporated into TB program towards women, particularly in rural setting. That must be taken in account when reviewing the Millennium Development Goals about women.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Edouard Sibiri Tianhoun for reviewing this article. Also, the authors wish to thank all subjects who participated in this study.

 

Author contribution

Ziemlé Clément Méda participated in the planning of the study, data analysis and drafting and writing of the manuscript. Issiaka Sombié participated in the conception of the study idea, literature review, general supervision of the study and revision of the manuscript. Maurice Yaogo and Henri Somé participated in the data analysis, and revision of the manuscript. Rasmané Ganaba participated in the design of the study, general supervision of the study and revision of manuscript.  Moctar Ouédraogo and Nicolas Méda participated in drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors revised and approved the final version manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Reprint requests or correspondence: Dr. Ziemlé Clément MEDA, Ministry of Health, Burkina Faso, 09 BP 450 Ouagadougou 09 (medacle1@yahoo.fr; Phone: +226 70 24 48 27 or +226 20 99 50 06, FAX: +226 20 99 50 06).

 

 

References

1   Andrea B, Matteo Z. Emesto  J. Paul N. Geneviève P et al (2008) Limitations on Human            Rights: Are they Justifiable to Reduce the Burden of TB in the Era of MDR- and XDR-TB? Health and Human Rights.10(2): 121-126..DOI: 10.2307/20460107

2. Le Peuple A, Vivien JN, and Thiber R,(1987) Recherches bactériologiques initiales dans un traitement ambulatoire correct. Rev info DIS, 9: . 275-294.

3.  Ouedraogo M, ouedraogo G., ouedraogo S.M., zigani A., bambara M., some l et al.( 1999) A propos de la tuberculose a Ouagadougou: Etude retrospective a propos de 2 202 cas Médecine  d'Afrique Noire: ,. 46:. 8-9.

4.   Hamid Salim MA, Declercq, A. Van Deun,  K. A. R. Saki et al.,(2004) Différences entre sexes en matière de tuberculose : une enquête de prévalence menée au Bangladesh Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 8(8): . 952-957

5.  Adriana Sorete Arbore, et al., 2342 Romanian TB patients working abroad: an unknown problem for EU. Abstract printing supported by Nonin Medical, Inc. Visit Nonin Medical, Inc. at Hall 3.2 Stand 3.57; 244. Tuberculosis in immigrants, disadvantaged populations, elderly, HIV- seropositive and in other risk groups; Thematic Poster Session Hall 6.2-27 - 12:50-14:40, on Monday, October 6th. 2008.

6.   Dhuria M, Sharma N, and Ingle GK,(2008) Impact of tuberculosis on the quality of life. Indian J Community Med 2008. 33: . 58-59. doi:  [10.4103/0970-0218.39249]

7.   Holmes CB, Hausler H, and N. P,(1998) A review of sex differences in the epidemiology of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2(2):  96-104.

8. Long NH EvaJohansson M.dVinod KDiwan cAnnaWinkvistd  et al,(1999) Different tuberculosis in men and women: beliefs from focus groups in Vietnam. Soc Sci Med,. 49(6): . 815-822.

9.         Johansson N.H.Long..K.Diwan A. Winkvist AT,(2000) Gender and tuberculosis control: perspectives on health seeking behaviour among men and women in Vietnam. Health Policy 52(1):  33-51.

10.       Yamasaki-Nakagawa M  Ozasa, K. Yamada, N. Osuga, K. Shimouchi, A.; Ishikawa, N. Bam, D.S.  Mori T et al,(2001) Gender difference in delays to diagnosis and health care seeking behaviour in a rural area of Nepal. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis,. 5(1):  24–23.

11. Balasubramanian R, Niruparani, C Sudha, G; Jaggarajamma, K. Frieden, T. R.Narayanan, P.R. et al, (2004Gender disparities in tuberculosis: report from a rural DOTS programme in south India. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 8(3): 323-332.

12. Crampin, A. Mwinuka,V. K. Ngwira, B. M. Mwaungulu, F.D. Warndorff, D. K. Fine,P.M. et al., (2004)Tuberculosis and gender: exploring the patterns in a case control study in Malawi. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 8(2):  194-203.

13.       Eastwood SV and Hill PC,(2004) A gender-focused qualitative study of barriers to accessing tuberculosis treatment in The Gambia, West Africa. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 8(1):  70-75.

14.       Agboatwalla M, et al.,(2003) Gender perspectives on knowledge and practices regarding tuberculosis in urban and rural areas in Pakistan. East Mediterr Health J,. 9(4): 732-740.

15.       Wang J, F.Y., Shen H, and Xu B,(2008) Gender difference in knowledge of tuberculosis and associated health-care seeking behaviors: a cross-sectional study in a rural area of China. . BMC Public Health, 8(8): 354.

16.       Hoa GP, Chuc NTK, and Thorson A, Knowledge, attitudes, and practices about tuberculosis and choice of communication channels in a rural community in Vietnam. Health Policy, 2009. 90(1): p. 8-12.