Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29247104›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Comparing four service delivery models for adolescent girls and young women through the 'Girl Power' study: protocol for a multisite quasi-experimental cohort study.

Nora E Rosenberg, Audrey E Pettifor, Laura Myers, Twambilile Phanga, Rebecca Marcus, Nivedita Latha Bhushan, Nomtha Madlingozi, Dhrutika Vansia, Avril Masters, Bertha Maseko and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nora E RosenbergUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Audrey E PettiforUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Laura MyersDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Mowbray, South Africa.
Twambilile PhangaUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Rebecca MarcusDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Mowbray, South Africa.
Nivedita Latha BhushanUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3417-3263
Nomtha MadlingoziDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Mowbray, South Africa.
Dhrutika VansiaUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Avril MastersDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Mowbray, South Africa.
Bertha MasekoUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Lulu MtwishaDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Mowbray, South Africa.
Annie KachigambaLilongwe District Health Office, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Jennifer TangUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Mina C HosseinipourUniversity of North Carolina Project, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Linda-Gail BekkerDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Mowbray, South Africa.
Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation · ZAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USMinistry of Health · MW

Funding

Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
Developing and Assessing a Male Engagement Intervention for Option B+ in MalawiR00MH104154 · NIMH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROSENBERG, NORA · 2017 to 2019
$746k
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH104154
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn sub-Saharan Africa, adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) face a range of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) challenges. Clinical, behavioural and structural interventions have each reduced these risks and improved health outcomes. However, combinations of these interventions have not been compared with each other or with no intervention at all. The 'Girl Power' study is designed to systematically make these comparisons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Four comparable health facilities in Malawi and South Africa (n=8) were selected and assigned to one of the following models of care: (1) ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board, the University of Cape Town Human Research Ethics Committee and Malawi's National Health Sciences Research Committee. Study plans, processes and findings will be disseminated to stakeholders, in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

Indexed as

AdolescentDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMalawiNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicProspective StudiesResearch DesignSouth AfricaWomen's Health ServicesYoung Adultchild protectionepidemiologyinternational health servicespublic health

Identifiers

PMID29247104
PMCPMC5735401
OpenAlexW2774589370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.