ArticleBMJ open2017
Prospective daily diary study reporting of any and all symptoms in healthy adults in Pakistan: prevalence and response.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Capturing dynamics in nursing: a diary study of nurses' job characteristics and ability and willingness to continue working.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The global burden of sore throat and group AEClinicalMedicine · 2022Article
- Symptom Burden and Factors Associated with Acute Respiratory Infections in the First Two Years of Life-Results from the LoewenKIDS Cohort.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Birth cohort studies using symptom diaries for assessing respiratory diseases-a scoping review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Prevalence of self-medication in children under-five years by their mothers in Yogyakarta city Indonesia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- Too many zeros and/or highly skewed? A tutorial on modelling health behaviour as count data with Poisson and negative binomial regression.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrevalence of symptoms in everyday life and how people respond to these symptoms is little studied outside Western culture and developed countries. We sought to use modified diary methods to explore the prevalence of and responses to symptoms in Pakistan.
designProspective daily survey of symptoms and response.
setting8 cities across four provinces in Pakistan.
participantsStratified intercept in each city to recruit 153 participants of which 151 completed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Each day for 30 days, participants were prompted by text message (short message service (SMS)) to complete a symptom diary. On days where symptoms were experienced, participants also reported how they responded. Prevalence was adjusted to population age and gender distributions.
results92% of participants experienced symptoms (adjusted prevalence 94%, 95% CI 91% to 97%), with musculoskeletal pain (83%, adj. 84%, 95% CI 84% to 90%) and respiratory symptoms (75%, adj. 77%, 95% CI 71% to 84%) the most prevalent types of symptoms. Self-medication and use of home remedies and traditional medicines were the most common responses. Seeking professional help or using conventional medicine were less common, and self-medication responses included the use of antibiotics without prescription. The range of home remedies and traditional medicines was very diverse.
conclusionsWhile symptom experience in Pakistan was similar to Western countries, home remedies were much more frequently used to respond to symptoms. Understanding how people respond and manage their experience of symptoms outside formal healthcare is important for designing effective policy and interventions, and this needs to be understood within the broader context including the cultural and economic setting, the health system and other structural determinants of health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.