ArticleGlobal health action2014
Considerations for preparing a randomized population health intervention trial: lessons from a South African-Canadian partnership to improve the health of health workers.
Article in Global health action, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning from a cluster randomized controlled trial to improve healthcare workers' access to prevention and care for tuberculosis and HIV in Free State, South Africa: the pivotal role of information systems.Global health action · 2016Trial
- The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships.Global health, science and practice · 2022Review
- Applying Translational Science Approaches to Protect Workers Exposed to Nanomaterials.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis.Globalization and health · 2021Review
- Towards TB elimination: how are macro-level factors perceived and addressed in policy initiatives in a high burden country?Globalization and health · 2021Article
- Community perspectives on randomisation and fairness in a cluster randomised controlled trial in Zambia.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Strengthening Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Tuberculosis Prevention Capacity among South African Healthcare Workers: A Mixed Methods Study of a Collaborative Occupational Health Program.Safety and health at work · 2018Article
- The Development and Piloting of Parallel Scales Measuring External and Internal HIV and Tuberculosis Stigma Among Healthcare Workers in the Free State Province, South Africa.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016Article
- Protecting health workers from infectious disease transmission: an exploration of a Canadian-South African partnership of partnerships.Globalization and health · 2016Article
- Experiences from a pilot study on how to conduct a qualitative multi-country research project regarding use of antibiotics in Southeast Europe.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2016Article
- Why language matters: insights and challenges in applying a social determination of health approach in a North-South collaborative research program.Globalization and health · 2015Article
- Healthcare Worker Preferences for Active Tuberculosis Case Finding Programs in South Africa: A Best-Worst Scaling Choice Experiment.PloS one · 2015Article
- Ethics in Community-University-Artist Partnered Research: Tensions, Contradictions and Gaps Identified in an 'Arts for Social Change' Project.Journal of academic ethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-based cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly being conducted to address pressing global health concerns. Preparations for clinical trials are well-described, as are the steps for multi-component health service trials. However, guidance is lacking for addressing the ethical and logistic challenges in (cluster) RCTs of population health interventions in low- and middle-income countries.
objectiveWe aimed to identify the factors that population health researchers must explicitly consider when planning RCTs within North-South partnerships.
designWe reviewed our experiences and identified key ethical and logistic issues encountered during the pre-trial phase of a recently implemented RCT. This trial aimed to improve tuberculosis (TB) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention and care for health workers by enhancing workplace assessment capability, addressing concerns about confidentiality and stigma, and providing onsite counseling, testing, and treatment. An iterative framework was used to synthesize this analysis with lessons taken from other studies.
resultsThe checklist of critical factors was grouped into eight categories: 1) Building trust and shared ownership; 2) Conducting feasibility studies throughout the process; 3) Building capacity; 4) Creating an appropriate information system; 5) Conducting pilot studies; 6) Securing stakeholder support, with a view to scale-up; 7) Continuously refining methodological rigor; and 8) Explicitly addressing all ethical issues both at the start and continuously as they arise.
conclusionResearchers should allow for the significant investment of time and resources required for successful implementation of population health RCTs within North-South collaborations, recognize the iterative nature of the process, and be prepared to revise protocols as challenges emerge.
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.