Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25380994›Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

The Nkateko health service trial to improve hypertension management in rural South Africa: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Margaret Thorogood, Jane Goudge, Melanie Bertram, Tobias Chirwa, Sandra Eldridge, Francesc Xavier Gómez-Olivé, Felix Limbani, Eustasius Musenge, Nokuzola Myakayaka, Stephen Tollman and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

11 authors.

Margaret ThorogoodDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Gibett Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. m.thorogood@warwick.ac.uk.
Jane Goudge
Melanie Bertram
Tobias Chirwa
Sandra Eldridge
Francesc Xavier Gómez-Olivé
Felix Limbani
Eustasius Musenge
Nokuzola Myakayaka
Stephen Tollman
Rhian Twine

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J016020/1Medical Research Council MR/JO16020/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSouth Africa has a high and rising prevalence of hypertension. Many affected individuals are not using medication, and few have controlled blood pressure. Until recently, primary care clinics focused on maternal and child health and management of acute conditions, but new government initiatives have shifted the focus to chronic diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hypertension. METHODS/

designThe Nkateko trial will test the effectiveness of clinic-based lay health workers (LHWs) in supporting hypertension management. It is a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial based in the Agincourt subdistrict of northeast South Africa, and it is underpinned by long-term health and demographic surveillance. Eight primary care facilities, with their catchment communities, are randomised to usual care or the addition of LHWs focused on chronic care. All clinics (intervention and control) will be provided with a clerk to collect information on clinic attendees and will match them to preexisting surveillance records. Intervention clinics will have LHWs working alongside nursing staff and focusing on health care for people with chronic conditions, particularly hypertension. The LHWs will be supported by an implementation manager, who will work with clinic staff to develop the most effective role for the LHWs. Control clinics will continue to provide usual care. The primary outcome will be the change between two population surveys conducted before and after the intervention in the proportion of the population with uncontrolled hypertension and a risk profile indicating at least moderate risk of cardiovascular disease. A process evaluation will be based on a realist approach using patient exit interviews, clinic observations and interviews with health professionals, LHWs and patients to document the intervention and its implementation. DISCUSSION: There are challenges in the design of this trial. Assessing change through population surveys may reduce measurable effects; however, we feel this is appropriate because we aim to attract those who currently do not use clinics, and we hope to improve care for clinic users. Clinics were randomised at an open meeting because we were concerned that a remote process of randomisation would not be trusted by the community. We are constantly working to achieve an effective balance between the intervention and process evaluations.

trial registrationISRCTN12128227 (registered 5 March 2014).

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHealth Services ResearchPrimary Health CareResearch DesignRural Health ServicesAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCatchment Area, HealthClinical ProtocolsDelivery of Health CareHumansHypertensionOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Care TeamPatient ComplianceRisk FactorsAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID25380994
PMCPMC4289183

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.