Critical evaluation of the Global DOTS Expansion Plan


Evaluation critique du plan mondial d’élargissement de la stratégie DOTS


Evaluación crítica del Plan Mundial de Expansión del DOTS



Donald A Enarson1; Nils E Billo

International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 68 boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006 Paris, France




The development of the DOTS Expansion Plan has been a milestone in tuberculosis (TB) control at the global and national levels. Key challenges that remain are overcoming the weakness of a strategy built on case management, sustaining commitment, competing priorities, the threat of HIV, maintaining high quality of care and preventing drug resistance, building human resource capacity, improving diagnosis and fostering operations research. The ability to address these challenges will determine the success or failure of the Global Plan to Stop TB, 2006–2015.


Le développement du plan d’élargissement de la stratégie DOTS a constitué une étape importante dans la lutte contre la tuberculose (TB) à l’échelle tant nationale que mondiale. Les principales difficultés à surmonter restent : la faiblesse d’une stratégie reposant sur la prise en charge des cas, la durabilité des engagements, la concurrence entre les diverses priorités, la menace liée au VIH, le maintien de la qualité des soins, la prévention de la pharmacorésistance, la constitution de capacités dans le domaine des ressources humaines, l’amélioration du diagnostic et l’encouragement de la recherche opérationnelle. La capacité à faire face à ces difficultés est déterminante pour le succès ou l’échec du Plan « Mondial Halte à la tuberculose » 2006-2015.


La formulación del Plan de DOTS ha sido un hito de la lucha antituberculosa a nivel mundial y nacional. Entre los grandes retos que aún habrá que superar cabe citar la debilidad de una estrategia basada en el manejo de los casos, el mantenimiento del compromiso, la competencia de otras prioridades, la amenaza del VIH, el mantenimiento de la alta calidad de la atención y la prevención de la farmacorresistencia, la creación de capacidad de recursos humanos, la mejora del diagnóstico y el fomento de las investigaciones operativas. La capacidad de afrontar esos desafíos determinará el éxito o el fracaso del Plan Mundial para Detener la Tuberculosis 2006–2015.




The recent Global Plan to Stop TB, 2006–20151 takes into account the challenges identified during the five years of the Global DOTS Expansion Plan (GDEP), which ran from 2001 to 2005. At a workshop in Cairo in November 2000, national TB programme (NTP) managers from the 22 high-burden countries, WHO, technical partners, development agencies and donors agreed to develop the GDEP in response to the Amsterdam Declaration and a resolution of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2000.2 The focus of the GDEP would be to establish national DOTS expansion plans and develop partnerships to control TB. Participants at the workshop identified nine key areas of work as critical to achieving the goals of the Amsterdam Declaration and the WHA resolution – development of five-year plans, increased political commitment, enhanced national and international partnerships, social mobilization, human resource development, improved TB drug procurement, quality assurance of smear examination and operational research to improve TB control.

Major progress has been made since that time, including:3

  • a vibrant international Stop TB partnership;

  • several programmes with national TB partnerships;

  • national DOTS expansion plans in all high-burden countries;

  • the Global TB Drug facility (GDF);

  • sustained interest of international policy-makers;

  • mobilization of substantial financial resources through established mechanisms (e.g. development agencies) and new mechanisms (e.g. the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria);

  • commitment of national public authorities to adoption and adaptation of international policies;

  • implementation of case management in routine health services; and

  • increased support for development of new diagnostics, drugs and vaccines.

However, key challenges remain and may not have been sufficiently addressed in the GDEP. This paper discusses these challenges.


Weakness of the core strategy

Prevention based on case management has never eliminated or eradicated any disease — only vaccine-based strategies have achieved this.4 Situating prevention in case management (i.e. in routine health services) means that all the challenges of establishing and maintaining quality health services (e.g. access, equity and competing priorities) must be faced. The focus on "downstream" interventions prioritizes case management and even the application of the currently available vaccine (which prevents serious forms of disease in small children but has not been demonstrated to prevent primary infection).5 This approach fails to address factors related to poverty, with which TB is intimately associated.


Sustaining ownership and empowerment

In fighting TB, economic arguments have been used to engage key stakeholders. These arguments are based on the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions and the economic gains to be made from following the strategy. For example, the World Bank promoted the view that governments could not afford not to implement DOTS.6 Although this approach has been successful in certain locations, bilateral and multilateral agencies have sometimes undermined the economic argument by shifting responsibility for budgets for TB control from national to international sources.7,8 Ownership of the domain has consequently been taken up by interested parties at an international level, rather than by those primarily affected. This situation tends to disempower local and national stakeholders.


Addressing competing interests and fashions

Health services worldwide have limits on their resources, particularly where resources are scarce. Also, resources are not always allocated according to evidence, especially in poor and marginalized communities.9 Rather, they are often subject to special interests and fashions in the area of international development policy, with the only stable factor in such policy being the desire to change it.

The example of WHO reflects this tendency. When formed, the organization included a specialized TB unit.10 Efforts in TB control coincided with steady declines in TB mortality and morbidity in industrialized countries.11 However, similar progress was not observed in low-income countries, and the approach was heavily criticized.12 A subsequent shift of emphasis from specialized to generalized primary care services followed the adoption of the slogan "Health for all by the year 2000".13 As the year 2000 approached, however, this slogan disappeared, and targeted approaches (to TB, malaria, tobacco and other specific issues) emerged and gained high visibility. If fashions change, will it be possible to provide the decades of commitment required to achieve the GDEP’s goals?


Stemming the tide of HIV

In some countries, particularly in southern sub-Saharan Africa, TB and HIV are closely linked; for example, in the highest-burden settings, 75% of TB patients are also living with HIV/AIDS.14 Due to the link between TB and HIV, sub-Saharan Africa is likely to supersede all other regions in the burden of TB over the coming decades.15

The trend of rising TB case rates can only be reduced if HIV infection rates are also reduced. The Stop TB Partnership (the organization that developed the GDEP) and its TB/HIV working group recognize this situation, but not all current approaches address the challenge. Failure to link efforts in TB control to those aimed at reducing HIV infection rates will undermine all other efforts to stop TB. Many countries have attempted to improve collaboration between TB and HIV services, but progress has been painfully slow and inadequate.16


Maintaining service quality, preventing drug resistance

The quality of care for TB patients is inextricably linked to the future of the TB epidemic.12 By keeping patients alive but failing to cure them, poor treatment actually augments the spread of TB. Also, a high proportion of previously treated cases harbour drug-resistant bacilli and transmit infection in the community.17,18 Recently, there have been outbreaks of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) TB, even in locations that have supposedly adopted international recommendations for standard case management.19 Access to second-line medications and improper use of these medications has not prevented, and may even have promoted, these outbreaks.

It is unclear how much the rather strict conditions of the DOTS strategy can be liberalized without adverse consequences. What is clear is that, in locations where the rather old-fashioned strict policies have been conscientiously followed (e.g. United Republic of Tanzania,20 Benin21 and Nicaragua22), the numbers of multidrug resistant (MDR) cases are low; whereas, in situations where only some elements of the strategy have been strictly adopted, MDR-23 and XDR-TB19 have emerged. These finding suggest that strict policies are crucial in preventing emergence of drug resistance.

Such considerations have particular relevance where standard case management is provided in multiple sectors, particularly the private sector, where quality of services repeatedly has been shown to be deficient.24,25 Can the quality of such services be improved? And if so, can improved quality be sustained? In other conditions (e.g. asthma), standard case management (i.e. care based on guidelines) has been demonstrated to be the management of choice (i.e. the best standard of care), but although professional bodies and specialists subscribe to the theory, they rarely carry it out in practice.26 Efforts to improve quality of care within the private sector have been initiated within WHO’s Stop TB Department; for example, through the publication of the International Standards for Tuberculosis Care.27 Also, some studies suggest that quality of care can be improved through targeted interventions to encourage partnership.28,29 Ensuring the consistent delivery of high-quality of care at all levels of the health service and within all sectors will be a key challenge. If the GDEP plan (or the more recent Global Plan to Stop TB) has not sufficiently addressed this point, it will be a major challenge to the strategy.


Ensuring sufficient human resource capacity

The GDEP succeeded in mobilizing additional resources from a variety of sources, and many countries have been able to expand DOTS according to their 5-year plans, often creating interagency committees to improve coordination between the various stakeholders. Improving coordination, avoiding duplication of efforts and avoiding giving conflicting recommendations will continue to be a challenge for all partners. Today, NTP managers spend much of their time writing funding proposals, preparing reports (in different formats for each donor) and organizing review visits for their multitude of partners. NTP managers and programme staff need to have enough time for activities critical to improving TB control.

The Cairo workshop identified the need to increase political commitment to secure adequate human resources and finances for all TB control components at national and sub-national levels.30 Substantial funding has been obtained from many donors — in particular from the Global Fund.31 However, many countries still find it difficult to implement effective human resource development strategies and to secure sufficient funding for this purpose.32 Although training courses are offered at national and international levels, countries are struggling to retain qualified personnel. For example, qualified and well-trained staff often seek employment in the private sector or in international bodies, or migrate to industrialized countries.33 Provision of additional funding can overwhelm some countries, particularly where absorption capacity is hampered by inadequate management systems.34 Thus, reinforcement and maintenance of human resource capacity in technical and management domains probably represents the main challenge for TB control in the next decade.


Assuring quality of diagnosis

Establishment and implementation of quality assurance for diagnostic examination (sputum-smear microscopy) was one of the GDEP’s main goals. This basic test, which should be technically feasible at any location, is fundamental to a TB diagnostic service. Great progress has been made in establishing global consensus on methods for quality assurance of sputum-smear microscopy,35 and a group of experts has been set up to develop improved tools and strategies for diagnostic services.36 In spite of these advances, the quality of sputum-smear examination remains deficient in many (if not most) sites, and recommended programmes for quality assurance have not been widely implemented.37

Current diagnostic procedures remain cumbersome and time-consuming. Confirming a diagnosis by definitively demonstrating the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis continues to take days or weeks, and even sputum-smear microscopy may necessitate visits to health facilities over several days. The need for, and benefits of, new technology that can provide on-the-spot, reliable diagnostic tools are obvious.


Maintaining a critical spirit

A climate of critical reflection is necessary for effective and efficient public health.38 This can be achieved through an imbedded programme of operations research (another "plank" of the GDEP and important in the first formulation of the NTP’s ideal structure).39 Although studies from a limited number of locations have been published over the past decade,40–42 the establishment and maintenance of operations research is rarely a routine activity within NTPs.

Implementation of routine standardized monitoring of diagnosis and treatment outcomes using cohort analysis has helped to improve NTPs’ quality of services,43 and has provided valuable information for operational planning and management.

Clearly, the GDEP and the Global Plan to Stop TB have made great strides towards reducing the huge burden to health caused by TB, but much more remains to be done if we are to overcome the challenges discussed here.

Competing interests: None declared.



1. Stop TB Partnership. The Global Plan to Stop TB, 2006-2015. Geneva: WHO. 2006.        

2. Fifty-third World Health Assembly. WHA53/2000/REC/1. Geneva: WHO, 2000.        

3. Gupta R, Espinal MA, Raviglione MC. Tuberculosis as a major global health problem in the 21st century: a WHO perspective. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2004;25:245-53.        

4. Henderson DA. The challenge of eradication: lessons from past eradication campaigns. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1998;2:S4-8.        

5. Sutherland I, Lindgren I. The protective effect of BCG vaccination as indicated by autopsy studies. Tubercle 1979;60:225-231.        

6. World Development Report 1993: Investing in health. Oxford: Oxford University Press/World Bank; 1993.        

7. Trébucq A. Report on a visit to Benin, 13-25 February 2004. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; 2004.        

8. Malmborg R. Correspondence: Subject TB Drug for Sudan. 7 February 2007. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; 2007.        

9. Shiffman J. Donor funding priorities for communicable disease control in the developing world. Health Policy Plan 2006; 21: 411-420, Epub 2006 Sep 18.        

10. Raviglione MC, Pio A. Evolution of WHO policies for tuberculosis control, 1948-2001. Lancet 2002;359:775-80.        

11. Styblo K, Meijer J, Sutherland I. The transmission of tubercle bacilli. Its trend in a human population. KNCV Selected Papers 1971;13:1-104.        

12. Grzybowski S, Enarson DA. The fate of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis under various treatment programs. Bull Int Union Tuberc 1978;53:70-5.        

13. Brown TM, Cueto M, Fee E. The World Health Organization and the transition from 'international' to 'global' public health. Am J Public Health 2006; 96:62-72.        

14. Corbett EL, Marson B, Churchyard GJ, De Cock KM. Tuberculosis in sub-Saharan Africa: opportunities, challenges, and change in the era of antiretroviral therapy. Lancet 2006;367:926-37.        

15. Schulzer M, Fitzgerald JM, Enarson DA, Grzybowski S. An estimate of the future size of the tuberculosis problem in sub-Saharan Africa resulting from HIV infection. Tuber Lung Dis 1992;73:52-8.        

16. Dye C, Watt CJ, Bleed DM, Hosseini SM, Raviglione MC. Evolution of tuberculosis control and prospects for reducing tuberculosis incidence, prevalence, and deaths globally. JAMA 2005;293:2767-75.        

17. Schulzer M, Enarson DA, Grzybowski S, Hong YP, Kim SJ, Lin TP. An analysis of tuberculosis data in Taiwan and Korea. Int J Epidemiol 1987;16:584-9.        

18. Kanavaki S, Mantadakis E, Nikolaou S, Papavassiliou A, Karambela S, Anagnostou S, et al. Resistance of M. tuberculosis isolates from different populations in Greece, 1993-2002. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:559-64.        

19. Van Rie A, Enarson D. XDR tuberculosis: an indicator of public health negligence. Lancet 2006;368:1554-6.        

20. Chonde TM. The role of bacteriologic services in the National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme in Tanzania. Bull Int Union Tuberc 1989;64:37-9.        

21. Trébucq A, Anagonou S, Gninafon M, Lambregts K, Boulahbal F. Prevalence of primary and acquired resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to antituberculosis drugs in Benin after 12 years of short-course chemotherapy. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3:466-70.        

22. Heldal E, Arnadottir T, Cruz JR, Tardencilla A, Chacon L. Low failure rate in standardised retreatment of tuberculosis in Nicaragua: patient category, drug resistance and survival of 'chronic' patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2001; 5:129-36.        

23. Dosso M, Bonard D, Msellati P, Bamba A, Doulhourou C, Vincent V et al. Primary resistance to antituberculosis drugs: a national survey conducted in Cote d'Ivoire in 1995-1996. Ivoirian Study Group on Tuberculosis Resistance. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3:805-9.        

24. Uplekar MW, Shepard DS. Treatment of tuberculosis by private medical practitioners in India. Tubercle 1991;72:284-90.        

25. Mahendradhata Y, Lambert ML, Boelaert M, Van der Stuyft P. Editorial: Engaging the private sector for tuberculosis control: much advocacy on a meagre evidence base. Trop Med Int Health 2007; (Feb):5.        

26. Boulet LP, Phillips R, O’Byrne P, Becker A. Evaluation of asthma control by physicians and patients: comparison with current guidelines. Can Respir J 2002;9:417-23.        

27. International Standards for Tuberculosis Care. Available at: tb/publications/ 2006/istc_report.pdf        

28. Newell JN, Pande SB, Baral SC, Bam DS, Malla P. Control of tuberculosis in an urban setting in Nepal: private-public partnership. Bull World Health Organ 2004;82:92-8.        

29. Balasubramanian R, Rajeswari R, Vijayabhaskara RD, Jaggarajamma K, Gopi PG, Chandrasekharan V, et al. A rural public-private partnership model in tuberculosis control in South India. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:1380-5.        

30. Global DOTS Expansion Plan. Progress in TB control in high-burden countries, 2001, one year after the Amsterdam Ministerial Conference. Geneva: WHO; 2001 (WHO/CDS/STB/2001.11).        

31. The Global Fund for Tuberculosis, AIDS and Malaria. Available at: en/funds_raised/ distribution/#disease        

32. Figueroa-Munoz J, Palmer K, Poz MR, Blanc L, Bergstrom K, Raviglione MR. The health workforce crisis in TB control: a report from high burden countries. Hum Resour Health 2005;3:2.        

33. Stark O, Helmenstein C, Prskawetz A. Human capital depletion, human capital formation, and migration: a blessing or a 'curse ? Economic Letters 60:363-367.        

34. Green A, Collins C. Health systems in developing countries: public sector managers and the management of contradictions and change. Int J Health Plann Manage 2003;18:S67-78.        

35. External Quality Assessment for AFB Smear Microscopy. Washington: Association of Public Health Laboratories; 2002: 111 pages.        

36. Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics. Available at:        

37. Hawken MP, Muhindi DW, Chakaya JM, Bhatt SM, Ng'ang'a LW, Porter JD. Under-diagnosis of smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis in Nairobi, Kenya. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2001;5:360-3.        

38. Evans JR, Castillo GT, Abed FH, et al. Health research: essential link to equity in development. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987; 1-136.        

39. National Tuberculosis Association. Recommendations of the Arden House Conference on tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1960;81:482-4.        

40. Harries AD, Boxshall M, Phiri S, Kwanjana J. Managing HIV and tuberculosis in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet 2006;367:1817-8.        

41. Huong NT, Duong BD, Co NV, Quy HT, Tung LB, Broekmans JF, et al. Tuberculosis epidemiology in six provinces of Vietnam after the introduction of the DOTS strategy. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:963-9.        

42. Marais BJ, Gie RP, Hesseling AC, Schaaf HS, Lombard C, Enarson DA, et al. A refined symptom-based approach to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis in children. Pediatrics 2006;118:e1350-9.        

43. El-Sony AI, Mustafa SA, Khamis AH, Enarson DA, Baraka OZ, Bjune G. The effect of decentralization on tuberculosis services in three states of Sudan. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2003;7:445-50.        



(Submitted: 24 October 2006 – Final revised version received: 19 February 2007 – Accepted: 22 February 2007)



1 Correspondence to Nils E Billo (e-mail:

World Health Organization Genebra - Genebra - Switzerland