Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25407695›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2014

Implementing effective hygiene promotion: lessons from the process evaluation of an intervention to promote handwashing with soap in rural India.

Divya Rajaraman, Kiruba Sankar Varadharajan, Katie Greenland, Val Curtis, Raja Kumar, Wolf-Peter Schmidt, Robert Aunger, Adam Biran

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

Divya RajaramanDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, St John's Research Institute, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore 560034, India. Divya.rajaraman@sjri.res.in.
Kiruba Sankar Varadharajan
Katie Greenland
Val Curtis
Raja Kumar
Wolf-Peter Schmidt
Robert Aunger
Adam Biran

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn intervention trial of the 'SuperAmma' village-level intervention to promote handwashing with soap (HWWS) in rural India demonstrated substantial increases in HWWS amongst the target population. We carried out a process evaluation to assess the implementation of the intervention and the evidence that it had changed the perceived benefits and social norms associated with HWWS. The evaluation also aimed to inform the design of a streamlined shorter intervention and estimate scale up costs.

methodsIntervention implementation was observed in 7 villages. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the implementation team, village leaders and representatives of the target population. A questionnaire survey was administered in 174 households in intervention villages and 171 households in control villages to assess exposure to intervention activities, recall of intervention components and evidence that the intervention had produced changes in perceptions that were consistent with the intervention core messages. Costs were estimated for the intervention as delivered, as well as for a hypothetical scale-up to 1,000 villages.

resultsWe found that the intervention was largely acceptable to the target population, maintained high fidelity (after some starting problems), and resulted in a high level of exposure to most components. There was a high recall of most intervention activities. Subjects in the intervention villages were more likely than those in control villages to cite reasons for HWWS that were in line with intervention messaging and to believe that HWWS was a social norm. There were no major differences between socio-economic and caste groups in exposure to intervention activities. Reducing the intervention from 4 to 2 contact days, in a scale up scenario, cut the estimated implementation cost from $2,293 to $1,097 per village.

conclusionsThe SuperAmma intervention is capable of achieving good reach across men and women of varied social and economic status, is affordable, and has the potential to be effective at scale, provided that sufficient attention is given to ensuring the quality of intervention delivery.

Indexed as

Hand DisinfectionProcess Assessment, Health CareSoapsAdultChildCommunicable Disease ControlCommunity Health ServicesDiarrheaFemaleHealth EducationHumansIndiaMalePneumoniaRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesSoaps

Identifiers

PMID25407695
PMCPMC4251686

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.