Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21787392›Full record

Trial reportTrials2011

Community mobilisation with women's groups facilitated by Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) to improve maternal and newborn health in underserved areas of Jharkhand and Orissa: study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Prasanta Tripathy, Nirmala Nair, Rajendra Mahapatra, Shibanand Rath, Raj Kumar Gope, Suchitra Rath, Aparna Bajpai, Vijay Singh, Vikash Nath, Sarfraz Ali and 9 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Prasanta TripathyEkjut, Potka, Po-Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand, India. prasanta.ekjut@gmail.com
Nirmala Nair
Rajendra Mahapatra
Shibanand Rath
Raj Kumar Gope
Suchitra Rath
Aparna Bajpai
Vijay Singh
Vikash Nath
Sarfraz Ali
Alok Kumar Kundu
Dibarkar Choudhury
Sanjib Ghosh
Swati Sarbani
Rajesh Sinha
Christina Pagel
Anthony Costello
Tanja Aj Houweling
Audrey Prost

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAround a quarter of the world's neonatal and maternal deaths occur in India. Morbidity and mortality are highest in rural areas and among the poorest wealth quintiles. Few interventions to improve maternal and newborn health outcomes with government-mandated community health workers have been rigorously evaluated at scale in this setting.The study aims to assess the impact of a community mobilisation intervention with women's groups facilitated by ASHAs to improve maternal and newborn health outcomes among rural tribal communities of Jharkhand and Orissa. METHODS/

designThe study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial and will be implemented in five districts, three in Jharkhand and two in Orissa. The unit of randomisation is a rural cluster of approximately 5000 population. We identified villages within rural, tribal areas of five districts, approached them for participation in the study and enrolled them into 30 clusters, with approximately 10 ASHAs per cluster. Within each district, 6 clusters were randomly allocated to receive the community intervention or to the control group, resulting in 15 intervention and 15 control clusters. Randomisation was carried out in the presence of local stakeholders who selected the cluster numbers and allocated them to intervention or control using a pre-generated random number sequence. The intervention is a participatory learning and action cycle where ASHAs support community women's groups through a four-phase process in which they identify and prioritise local maternal and newborn health problems, implement strategies to address these and evaluate the result. The cycle is designed to fit with the ASHAs' mandate to mobilise communities for health and to complement their other tasks, including increasing institutional delivery rates and providing home visits to mothers and newborns. The trial's primary endpoint is neonatal mortality during 24 months of intervention. Additional endpoints include home care practices and health care-seeking in the antenatal, delivery and postnatal period. The impact of the intervention will be measured through a prospective surveillance system implemented by the project team, through which mothers will be interviewed around six weeks after delivery. Cost data and qualitative data are collected for cost-effectiveness and process evaluations. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN31567106.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisMedically Underserved AreaResearch DesignChild Health ServicesCommunity Health ServicesCommunity NetworksCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth Care CostsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PrioritiesHumansIndiaInfant Mortality

Identifiers

PMID21787392
PMCPMC3162534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.