Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28403187›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Effectiveness of advertising availability of prenatal ultrasound on uptake of antenatal care in rural Uganda: A cluster randomized trial.

William Cherniak, Geoffrey Anguyo, Christopher Meaney, Ling Yuan Kong, Isabelle Malhame, Romina Pace, Sumeet Sodhi, Michael Silverman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

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

8 authors.

William CherniakDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, The Markham-Stouffville Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3001-2400
Geoffrey AnguyoKigezi Healthcare Foundation, and Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Kabale, Uganda.
Christopher MeaneyDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, The Markham-Stouffville Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Ling Yuan KongBridge to Health Medical and Dental, Toronto, Canada.
Isabelle MalhameBridge to Health Medical and Dental, Toronto, Canada.
Romina PaceBridge to Health Medical and Dental, Toronto, Canada.
Sumeet SodhiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Division of Emergency Medicine, The Markham-Stouffville Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Michael SilvermanBridge to Health Medical and Dental, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In rural Uganda pregnant women often lack access to health services, do not attend antenatal care, and tend to utilize traditional healers/birth attendants. We hypothesized that receiving a message advertising that "you will be able to see your baby by ultrasound" would motivate rural Ugandan women who otherwise might use a traditional birth attendant to attend antenatal care, and that those women would subsequently be more satisfied with care. A cluster randomized trial was conducted across eight rural sub-counties in southwestern Uganda. Sub-counties were randomized to a control arm, with advertisement of antenatal care with no mention of portable obstetric ultrasound (four communities, n = 59), or an intervention arm, with advertisement of portable obstetric ultrasound. Advertisement of portable obstetric ultrasound was further divided into intervention A) word of mouth advertisement of portable obstetric ultrasound and antenatal care (one communitity, n = 16), B) radio advertisement of only antenatal care and word of mouth advertisement of antenatal care and portable obstetric ultrasound (one community, n = 7), or C) word of mouth + radio advertisement of both antenatal care and portable obstetric ultrasound (two communities, n = 75). The primary outcome was attendance to antenatal care. 159 women presented to antenatal care across eight sub-counties. The rate of attendance was 65.1 (per 1000 pregnant women, 95% CI 38.3-110.4) where portable obstetric ultrasound was advertised by radio and word of mouth, as compared to a rate of 11.1 (95% CI 6.1-20.1) in control communities (rate ratio 5.9, 95% CI 2.6-13.0, p<0.0001). Attendance was also improved in women who had previously seen a traditional healer (13.0, 95% CI 5.4-31.2) compared to control (1.5, 95% CI 0.5-5.0, rate ratio 8.7, 95% CI 2.0-38.1, p = 0.004). By advertising antenatal care and portable obstetric ultrasound by radio attendance was significantly improved. This study suggests that women can be motivated to attend antenatal care when offered the concrete incentive of seeing their baby.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CarePrenatal CareAdultAdvertisingFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationPregnancyRadioRural PopulationUgandaUltrasonography, PrenatalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28403187
PMCPMC5389838

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.