Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:05:08.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Controlling Tuberculosis in the United States: Use of Isolation and Other Measures Throughout the Country

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2016

Rebecca Katz*
Affiliation:
Center for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.
Andrea Vaught
Affiliation:
Center for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Rebecca Katz, PhD, MPH, Associate Professor, International Health, Center for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20037 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Abstract

Objectives

We sought to better understand the tools used by public health officials in the control of tuberculosis (TB).

Methods

We conducted a series of in-depth interviews with public health officials at the local, state, and federal levels to better understand how health departments around the country use isolation measures to control TB.

Results

State and local public health officials’ use of social distancing tools in infection control varies widely, particularly in response to handling noncompliant patients. Judicial and community support, in addition to financial resources, impacted the incentives and enablers used to maintain isolation of infectious TB patients.

Conclusions

Instituting social distancing requires authorities and resources and can be impacted by evidentiary standards, risk assessments, political will, and community support. Awareness of these factors, as well as knowledge of state and local uses of social distancing measures, is essential to understanding what actions are most likely to be instituted during a public health emergency and to target interventions to better prepare health departments to utilize the best available tools necessary to control the spread of disease. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:337–342)

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Kraemer, JD, Siedner, MJ, Stoto, MA. Analyzing variability in Ebola-related controls applied to returned travelers in the United States. Health Secur. 2015;13(5):295-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/hs.2015.0016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Cetron, M, Landwirth, J. Public health and ethical considerations in planning for quarantine. Yale J Biol Med. 2005;78(5):329-334.Google Scholar
3. World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2015. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.Google Scholar
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported Tuberculosis in the United States, 2014. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015.Google Scholar
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Treatment of tuberculosis, American Thoracic Society, CDC, and Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003;52(RR-11):1-77.Google Scholar
6. Herchline, TE. Tuberculosis treatment and management. Medscape website. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/230802-treatment. Updated October 22, 2015. Accessed January 19, 2016.Google Scholar
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tuberculosis (TB) fact sheet: infection control in health-care settings. CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/prevention/ichcs.htm. Accessed January 17, 2016.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Self-Study Modules on Tuberculosis: Module 9: Patient Adherence to Tuberculosis Treatment Reading Material. 2012; http://www.cdc.gov/tb/education/ssmodules/module9/ss9reading3.htm. Accessed 12 May, 2016.Google Scholar