Background: The tracing and screening of people who have had contact with an active case of tuberculosis (TB) is an important element of TB control strategies.
Objectives: This study aimed to carry out a review of evidence regarding TB contact tracing, with a particular emphasis on research that was applicable to TB contact tracing in specific population groups in the UK.
Design: An evidence synthesis of literature of any study design on TB contact tracing in developed countries was carried out.
Setting: Any setting.
Population: Individuals found to have active TB disease, and people who have come into contact with them.
Interventions: Contact-tracing investigations.
Main outcome measures: Any outcome related to TB infection, contact investigations and/or the views of staff, people with TB disease, or their contacts.
Data sources: Searches for research published 1995 onwards were undertaken in the following databases: MEDLINE via Ovid SP, EMBASE via Ovid SP, EconLit via Ovid SP, PsycINFO via Ovid SP, Social Policy and Practice via Ovid SP, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCOhost, Science and Social Science Citation Indices via Web of Science and The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library.
Review methods: The study comprised a review of TB contact tracing in specific population groups and a review in wider populations. A narrative synthesis was completed and a logic model was developed from the literature.
Results: There were 112 articles in the review: 23 related to specific populations and 89 related to wider populations. The literature was of limited quality, with much general description of investigations. We identified only two (uncontrolled) studies that could be considered evaluative. Although the limitations of the evidence should be recognised, the review suggested the following: the value of a location-based approach, working with local communities and the media, partnership working, using molecular epidemiological testing, ensuring adequate systems and addressing fear of stigma. The literature on investigations for specific populations has much concordance with that reporting findings from wider population groups. The recognised limitations of conventional investigation methods may, however, be exacerbated in specific populations.
Limitations: The English-language inclusion criterion may have limited the breadth of countries represented. A meta-analysis was not possible owing to the nature of the literature. Relevant studies may have been missed by our searches, which used terminology relating to contact tracing rather than to active case finding or screening.
Conclusions: The review identified a sizeable volume of literature relating to contact investigations. However, it is currently predominantly descriptive, with little evaluative work underpinning investigations in either specific or wider populations. Our findings are, therefore, based on limited evidence. Further research is required if robust conclusions are to be made.
Future work: Research should further explore the development of measures that can be used to compare the effectiveness of different contact investigations, in studies using evaluative designs.
Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Baxter et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.