ArticleBMC public health2017
Using a monitoring and evaluation framework to improve study efficiency and quality during a prospective cohort study in infants receiving rotavirus vaccination in El Alto, Bolivia: the Infant Nutrition, Inflammation, and Diarrheal Illness (NIDI) study.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Factors Associated With Home Visits in a 5-Year Study of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Survivors.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2020Article
- Effects of Inflammation on Biomarkers of Vitamin A Status among a Cohort of Bolivian Infants.Nutrients · 2018Article
- Pooled Vaccine Communication Actions to Promote Vaccination in the European Union: The Case of Italy.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementing rigorous epidemiologic studies in low-resource settings involves challenges in participant recruitment and follow-up (e.g., mobile populations, distrust), biological sample collection (e.g., cold-chain, laboratory equipment scarcity) and data collection (e.g., literacy, staff training, and infrastructure). This article describes the use of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework to improve study efficiency and quality during participant engagement, and biological sample and data collection in a longitudinal cohort study of Bolivian infants.
methodsThe study occurred between 2013 and 2015 in El Alto, Bolivia, a high-altitude, urban, low-resource community. The study's M&E framework included indicators for participant engagement (e.g., recruitment, retention, safety), biological sample (e.g., stool and blood), and data (e.g., anthropometry, questionnaires) collection and quality. Monitoring indicators were measured regularly throughout the study and used for course correction, communication, and staff retraining.
resultsParticipant engagement indicators suggested that enrollment objectives were met (461 infants), but 15% loss-to-follow-up resulted in only 364 infants completing the study. Over the course of the study, there were four study-related adverse events (minor swelling and bruising related to a blood draw) and five severe adverse events (infant deaths) not related to study participation. Biological sample indicators demonstrated two blood samples collected from 95% (333 of 350 required) infants and stool collected for 61% of reported infant diarrhea episodes. Anthropometry data quality indicators were extremely high (median SDs for weight-for-length, length-for-age and weight-for-age z-scores 1.01, 0.98, and 1.03, respectively), likely due to extensive training, standardization, and monitoring efforts.
conclusionsConducting human subjects research studies in low-resource settings often presents unique logistical difficulties, and collecting high-quality data is often a challenge. Investing in comprehensive M&E is important to improve participant recruitment, retention and safety, and sample and data quality. The M&E framework from this study can be applied to other longitudinal studies.
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.