Cited by 1Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyCancer survivorship and careHealth Education and Validation

Patient-reported outcomes in tuberculosis: A qualitative exploration of psychosocial, economic, and treatment-related challenges

Open access
Viegas1, Pedro, L Ferreira1, Luís, Vieira2,3, Mariana, Barbosa2, Pedro, P Ramos2,3, João, Duarte2,3,4, Raquel·2025·Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Personal experiences, perceptions, and views of patients are crucial in understanding the subjective impacts of diseases. The complexity and duration of tuberculosis treatment impose significant physical, emotional, social, and economic burdens, highlighting the need for person-centered, integrated care strategies that address stigma, fatigue, and accessibility to support well-being. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential for capturing patient perspectives and improving health care strategies. In this study we explored the multifaceted experiences of patients with tuberculosis, seeking to understand their values and priorities during treatment. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with adult tuberculosis patients were conducted at a referral center for tuberculosis diagnosis and management in northern Portugal. After verbatim transcription and anonymization, thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted. Most (58.8%) of the study participants were male, and most had pulmonary tuberculosis. Our thematic analysis identified five PROs: treatment experiences; health-related quality of life; functional status; symptoms and symptom burden; and health behaviors. People with tuberculosis acknowledged the impact of multiple factors on their overall health, particularly the psychological and physical burdens of tuberculosis and its treatment. Several areas for improvement and opportunities for enhanced support were identified, particularly in communication, emotional support, and management of treatment burden. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need for tailored PRO measures (PROMs) addressing treatment burden, psychosocial distress, and functional limitations in tuberculosis care. Enhancing communication, psychological support, and multidisciplinary approaches in tuberculosis management could improve patient outcomes and overall well-being. Addressing tuberculosis-related stigma and providing targeted interventions may contribute to a more people-centered approach to care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.36416/1806-3756/e20250159

Cites

28 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A scoping review is timely because the End TB Strategy and the WHO mhGAP framework have explicitly called for integration of mental health and psychosocial care into TB programs, while the number of primary trials and qualitative studies in this area has expanded substantially over the past five years.

    “A scoping review is particularly timely now because the End TB Strategy [13] and the WHO mhGAP framework [17] have explicitly called for the integration of mental health and psychosocial care into TB programs, while the number of primary trials and qualitative studies in this area has expanded substantially over the past five years [18,19,20,21].”

    From Psychosocial Interventions for Improving Treatment Adherence in Tuberculosis Patients: A Scoping Review of Evidence-Based Approaches. (2026) · cites this paper as [21]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Viegas1, P., L Ferreira1, L., Vieira2, 3., Barbosa2, P., P Ramos2, 3., & Duarte2, 3.
Affiliations
  • 1. Serviço de Pneumologia, Unidade Local de Saúde de Gaia/Espinho - ULSGE - Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
  • 2. EPIUnit ITR, Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 3. Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • 2. EPIUnit ITR, Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • 2. EPIUnit ITR, Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 3. Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 4. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge - INSA-Porto - Porto, Portugal.
Venue
Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia
Published
2025-08-28
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
e20250159
ISSN
  • 1806-3713 (ISSN-L)
  • 1806-3756
OpenAlex
W4414090065
Cited by
1
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
tuberculosis, patient-reported outcomes, patient experience, treatment burden, health-related quality of life, functional status, symptom burden, health behavior, psychosocial distress, stigma, emotional support, patient-provider communication, multidisciplinary care, person-centred care
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Portugal, Quality of Life, Socioeconomic Factors, Tuberculosis, Tuberculosis, Pulmonary, Cost of Illness, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review