Trial reportGlobal journal of health science2011
Process evaluation of a psychosocial intervention addressing women in a disadvantaged setting.
Trial report in Global journal of health science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods used to address fidelity of receipt in health intervention research: a citation analysis and systematic review.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis paper presents the process evaluation of a community-based randomized psycho-social trial aimed to enhance reproductive and mental health outcomes of disadvantaged women living in the southern suburb of Beirut-Lebanon. Process evaluation of public health interventions involves the monitoring and documentation of interventions' implementation to allow for better understanding of planned outcomes and of intervention effectiveness.
methodsA community-based randomized trial was conducted. The intervention consisted of 12 sessions (of combined 30 minutes of relaxation exercises and 75 minutes of structured support groups) delivered twice per week over a period of six-weeks. A process evaluation was conducted during the implementation of the intervention. This process evaluation aimed to ensure that the intervention was delivered and implemented as planned, as well as to monitor women's satisfaction and attendance. The main components of the process evaluation included: dose delivered, dose received, and reach. Closed ended questionnaires were administered before/after/during each intervention session. Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS. Analysis revolved around simple frequency distribution for categorical variables and means (SD) for continuous variables. Limited bivariate analysis (using CHI Square and Anova) was done.
resultsRESULTS indicated that the delivery, implementation, and reach of the intervention were favorable. Participation was acceptable and satisfaction rates were very high.
conclusionThese favorable findings pertaining to intervention satisfaction, reach and participation highlight a number of lessons for future intervention studies in the context of disadvantaged settings. They also support the importance of involving the local community members in intervention planning, implementation and evaluation early on. We believe that the community involvement in this trial directly and significantly contributed to the results of this process evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.