Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27677694›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2016

The acceptability of mass administrations of anti-malarial drugs as part of targeted malaria elimination in villages along the Thai-Myanmar border.

Ladda Kajeechiwa, May Myo Thwin, Paw Wah Shee, Nan Lin Yee, Elvina Elvina, Peapah Peapah, Kyawt Kyawt, Poe Thit Oo, William PoWah, Jacqueline Roger Min and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mass Drug Administration: Contextual Factor Considerations.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Review
  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

14 authors.

Ladda KajeechiwaShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
May Myo ThwinShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Paw Wah SheeShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Nan Lin YeeShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Elvina ElvinaShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Peapah PeapahShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Kyawt KyawtShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Poe Thit OoShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
William PoWahShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Jacqueline Roger MinShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Jacher WiladphaingernShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Lorenz von SeidleinMahidol Oxford Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Lorenz@tropmedres.ac.
Suphak NostenShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.
Francois NostenShoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sot, Thailand.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 101148/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA targeted malaria elimination project, including mass drug administrations (MDA) of dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine plus a single low dose primaquine is underway in villages along the Thailand Myanmar border. The intervention has multiple components but the success of the project will depend on the participation of the entire communities. Quantitative surveys were conducted to study reasons for participation or non-participation in the campaign with the aim to identify factors associated with the acceptance and participation in the mass drug administrations.

methodsThe household heads in four study villages in which MDAs had taken place previously were interviewed between January 2014 and July 2015.

results174/378 respondents (46 %) completed three rounds of three drug doses each, 313/378 (83 %) took at least three consecutive doses and 56/378 (15 %) did not participate at all in the MDA. The respondents from the two villages (KNH and TPN) were much more likely to participate in the MDA than respondents from the other two villages (HKT and TOT). The more compliant villages KNH and TPN had both an appearance of cohesive communities with similar demographic and ethnic backgrounds. By contrast the villages with low participation were unique. One village was fragmented following years of armed conflict and many respondents gave little inclination to cooperate with outsiders. The other village with low MDA coverage was characterised by a high percentage of short-term residents with little interest in community interventions. A universal reason for non-participation in the MDA applicable to all villages was an inadequate understanding of the intervention.

conclusionsIt is unlikely that community engagement can unite fragmented communities in participating in an intervention, which benefits the community. Understanding the purpose and the reasons underlying the intervention is an important pre-condition for participation. In the absence of direct benefits and a complete understanding of the indirect benefits trust in the investigators is critical for participation.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsAntimalarialsArtemisininsChildChild, PreschoolDisease EradicationDisease Transmission, InfectiousFemaleHumansInfantMalariaAntimalarialsArtemisininsartenimolpiperaquinePiperazinesPrimaquineQuinolinesAcceptanceBehaviourCommunity engagementKnowledgeMalariaMass drug administrationSocial mobilisationTargeted malaria control

Identifiers

PMID27677694
PMCPMC5039796

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.