Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26485128›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Intervention Study to Assess the Effect of a Contact Intervention in Reducing Leprosy-Related Stigma in Indonesia.

Ruth M H Peters, Dadun, Marjolein B M Zweekhorst, Joske F G Bunders, Irwanto, Wim H van Brakel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Effectiveness of a structured short intervention against stigmatisation in chronic visible skin diseases: Results of a controlled trial in future educators.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Investigation of community knowledge, attitudes and stigma towards leprosy in Nigeria: a mixed-methods study.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Ruth M H PetersAthena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
DadunFaculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.
Marjolein B M ZweekhorstAthena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joske F G BundersAthena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
IrwantoCentre for Disability Studies, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.
Wim H van BrakelNetherlands Leprosy Relief, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCan deliberate interaction between the public and persons affected by leprosy reduce stigmatization? The study described in this paper hypothesises that it can and assesses the effectiveness of a 'contact intervention'. METHODS/PRINCIPAL

findingsThis cluster-randomized controlled intervention study is part of the Stigma Assessment and Reduction of Impact (SARI) project conducted in Cirebon District, Indonesia. Testimonies, participatory videos and comics given or made by people affected by leprosy were used as methods to facilitate a dialogue during so-called 'contact events'. A mix of seven quantitative and qualitative methods, including two scales to assess aspects of stigma named the SDS and EMIC-CSS, were used to establish a baseline regarding stigma and knowledge of leprosy, monitor the implementation and assess the impact of the contact events. The study sample were community members selected using different sampling methods. The baseline shows a lack of knowledge about leprosy, a high level of stigma and contrasting examples of support. In total, 91 contact events were organised in 62 villages, directly reaching 4,443 community members (mean 49 per event). The interview data showed that knowledge about leprosy increased and that negative attitudes reduced. The adjusted mean total score of the EMIC-CSS reduced by 4.95 points among respondents who had attended a contact event (n = 58; p < 0.001, effect size = 0.75) compared to the score at baseline (n = 213); for the SDS this was 3.56 (p < 0.001, effect size = 0.81). About 75% of those attending a contact event said they shared the information with others (median 10 persons). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The contact intervention was effective in increasing knowledge and improving public attitudes regarding leprosy. It is relatively easy to replicate elsewhere and does not require expensive technology. More research is needed to improve scalability. The effectiveness of a contact intervention to reduce stigma against other neglected tropical diseases and conditions should be evaluated.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicSocial StigmaAdultAttitudeFemaleHumansIndonesiaKnowledgeLeprosyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26485128
PMCPMC4979763

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.