02991nas a2200421 4500000000100000008004100001260004900042653001500091653001000106653001500116653002700131653001100158653001700169653004200186653001100228653002300239653001200262653000900274653003800283653001400321653002500335653001300360653001700373653002100390653001600411100001600427700001200443700001200455700001200467700001700479245011700496856005100613300001100664490000700675050001800682520185500700022001402555 2011 d c2011 JunbLEPRA Health in ActionaColchester10aAdolescent10aAdult10aBangladesh10aFamily Characteristics10aFemale10aFocus Groups10aHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice10aHumans10aLeprostatic Agents10aleprosy10aMale10aPatient Acceptance of Health Care10aPrejudice10aQualitative Research10aRifampin10aStereotyping10aTruth Disclosure10aYoung Adult1 aFeenstra SG1 aNahar Q1 aPahan D1 aOskam L1 aRichardus JH00aAcceptability of chemoprophylaxis for household contacts of leprosy patients in Bangladesh: a qualitative study. uhttps://leprosyreview.org/article/82/2/17-8187 a178-870 v82 aFEENSTRA 20123 a
OBJECTIVES: Chemoprophylaxis with single dose rifampicin is a promising intervention to prevent leprosy in close contacts of patients. However, application in control programmes often requires disclosure of the leprosy diagnosis, which is still a stigmatised disease in many countries. Promoting control and treatment of stigmatised diseases without contributing towards stigma of the individuals involved can be very difficult. The objective of this study was to assess the social acceptability of disclosure of the diagnosis and the attitude towards taking prophylactic medicines in a leprosy endemic area in Bangladesh.
DESIGN: Qualitative study through focus group discussions with 136 healthy men and women from different age groups and religions, coming from two rural villages and an urban area in northwest Bangladesh, and 14 health workers with extensive experience with leprosy patients.
RESULTS: The participants would not object to disclosure of the diagnosis to household members and nearby family if they were diagnosed with leprosy. However, many participants were not willing to share this information with their neighbours and other social contacts due to stigma of the disease. All healthy participants were willing to take chemoprophylaxis if any of their close contacts were diagnosed with leprosy, even after explaining that full protection against leprosy was not guaranteed.
CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that chemoprophylaxis for household contacts of leprosy patients is an effective and socially acceptable addition to the current leprosy control programme. Chemoprophylaxis for other categories of contacts likely to benefit would only be feasible, without disclosure of patient information, if given in the form of mass campaigns for the whole population in the area.
a0305-7518