Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26391630›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Effectiveness of peer educators on the uptake of mobile X-ray tuberculosis screening at homeless hostels: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Robert W Aldridge, Andrew C Hayward, Sara Hemming, Lucia Possas, Gloria Ferenando, Elizabeth Garber, Marc Lipman, Timothy D McHugh, Alistair Story

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Robert W AldridgeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research.
Andrew C HaywardInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research.
Sara HemmingInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research.
Lucia PossasInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research.
Gloria FerenandoInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research.
Elizabeth GarberInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research.
Marc LipmanRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Centre for Clinical Microbiology, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Timothy D McHughDivision of Infection and Immunity, Centre for Clinical Microbiology, University College London, London, UK.
Alistair StoryUniversity College London Hospitals, London, UK.
University College London · GBFarr Institute · GBRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10340Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 097980/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

TRIAL

designCluster randomised controlled trial.

objectiveTo compare current practice for encouraging homeless people to be screened for tuberculosis on a mobile digital X-ray unit in London, UK, with the additional use of volunteer peer educators who have direct experience of tuberculosis, homelessness or both.

participants46 hostels took part in the study, with a total of 2342 residents eligible for screening. The study took place between February 2012 and October 2013 at homeless hostels in London, UK.

interventionAt intervention sites, volunteer peer educators agreed to a work plan that involved moving around the hostel in conjunction with the hostel staff, and speaking to residents in order to encourage them to attend the screening. RANDOMISATION: Cluster randomisation (by hostel) was performed using an internet-based service to ensure allocation concealment, with minimisation by hostel size and historical screening uptake. BLINDING: Only the study statistician was blinded to the allocation of intervention or control arms. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the number of eligible clients at a hostel venue screened for active pulmonary tuberculosis by the mobile X-ray unit.

resultsA total of 59 hostels were considered for eligibility and 46 were randomised. Control sites had a total of 1192 residents, with a median uptake of 45% (IQR 33-55). Intervention sites had 1150 eligible residents with a median uptake of 40% (IQR 25-61). Using Poisson regression to account for the clustered study design, hostel size and historical screening levels, there was no evidence that peer educators increased uptake (adjusted risk ratio 0.98; 95% CIs 0.80 to 1.20). The study team noted no adverse events.

conclusionsThis study found no evidence that volunteer peer educators increased client uptake of mobile X-ray unit screening for tuberculosis. Further qualitative work should be undertaken to explore the possible ancillary benefits to peer volunteers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17270334.

Indexed as

Mobile Health UnitsUrban PopulationCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansIll-Housed PersonsLondonMaleMass ScreeningMorbidityPatient Education as TopicRadiography, ThoracicReproducibility of ResultsTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID26391630
PMCPMC4577934
OpenAlexW2340241269

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.