Objectives: This study evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of the Tuberculosis (TB) Relief Belt Project (2014Project ( -2024) ) and proposes sustainable operational strategies by reviewing its role as a public health safety net and its policy impact. Methods:The project's implementation status, beneficiary characteristics, support case numbers, and institutional improvements were analyzed using annual reports, institutional performance data, policy research reports, and relevant academic literature from 2014 to 2024. Results:The TB Relief Belt Project expanded from four participating institutions in 2014 to 17 by 2024.During this expansion, the project consistently provided comprehensive, integrated services to vulnerable patients with TB, including medical expenses coverage, caregiving costs, transportation fees, nutritional support, and referral treatment costs.Notably, the number of cases receiving medical expense support increased substantially, from 31 in 2014 to 589 in 2024. Conclusions:Although the overall prevalence of TB is declining, vulnerable patients requiring support through the TB Relief Belt Project has continued to rise in number.This trend is attributable to the growth of economically disadvantaged populations, intensified outreach projects since 2019, and the expansion of eligibility for medical expense support following the introduction of the TB patient vulnerability assessment in 2022.Future efforts should focus on enhancing the project's sustainability and effectiveness by expanding into nonparticipating regions, strengthening engagement at existing institutions, and increasing project publicity.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
영현 김
진환 전
아랑 백
Public Health Weekly Report
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
김 et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69bf86ecf665edcd009e9165 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.56786/phwr.2026.19.10.2
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: