Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26739272›Full record

Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health2016

Formative evaluation of a participatory women's group intervention to improve reproductive and women's health outcomes in rural Bangladesh: a controlled before and after study.

Helen A Harris-Fry, Kishwar Azad, Leila Younes, Abdul Kuddus, Sanjit Shaha, Tasmin Nahar, Munir Hossen, Anthony Costello, Edward Fottrell

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Helen A Harris-FryUCL Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Kishwar AzadDiabetic Association of Bangladesh (BADAS), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Leila YounesUCL Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abdul KuddusDiabetic Association of Bangladesh (BADAS), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sanjit ShahaDiabetic Association of Bangladesh (BADAS), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Tasmin NaharDiabetic Association of Bangladesh (BADAS), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Munir HossenDiabetic Association of Bangladesh (BADAS), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Anthony CostelloUCL Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Edward FottrellUCL Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 085417 MA/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen's groups using participatory methods reduced newborn mortality in rural areas of low income countries. Our study assessed a participatory women's group intervention that focused on women's health, nutrition and family planning.

methodsThe study was conducted in three districts in Bangladesh between October 2011 and March 2013, covering a population of around 230 000. On the basis of allocation for the preceding cluster randomised trials, three unions per district were randomly allocated to receive a women's group intervention and three per district were control clusters. Outcomes included unmet need for family planning, morbidity, dietary diversity, night blindness, healthcare decision-making and knowledge of sexual and reproductive health, nutrition and anaemia. A difference-in-difference analysis was used to adjust for secular trends and baseline differences between women taking part in the intervention and a random sample from control clusters.

resultsWe interviewed 5355 (91% response rate) women before the intervention and 5128 after (96% response rate). There were significant improvements in women's dietary diversity score (increase of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3)) and participation in healthcare decision-making (proportion increase (95% CI) 14.0% (10.6% to 17.4%)). There were also increases in knowledge about: contraception (4.2% (2.0% to 6.3%)), ways to treat (55.4% (52.2% to 58.5%)) and prevent (71.0% (68.0% to 74.1%)) sexually transmitted infections, nutrition (46.6% (43.6% to 49.6%)) and anaemia prevention (62.8% (60.9% to 64.6%)). There were no significant differences in unmet need for family planning, morbidity or night blindness.

conclusionsParticipatory women's groups have considerable potential to improve women's health knowledge, but evidence of impact on certain outcomes is lacking. Further formative work and intervention development is needed to optimise the impact of this approach for women's health.

Indexed as

Infant MortalityReproductive Health ServicesRural PopulationWomen's HealthAdultBangladeshContraceptionFemaleHumansInfantDEVELOPING COUNTRDIETFAMILY PLANNINGHEALTH BEHAVIOURMATERNAL HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID26739272
PMCPMC4941186

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.