Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29688845›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

Impact evaluation of a community engagement intervention in improving childhood immunization coverage: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Assam, India.

Santanu Pramanik, Arpita Ghosh, Rituu B Nanda, Marlou de Rouw, Philip Forth, Sandra Albert

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Santanu PramanikPublic Health Foundation of India, Plot 47, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002, India. santanu.pramanik@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8147-3835
Arpita GhoshPublic Health Foundation of India, Plot 47, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002, India.
Rituu B NandaThe Constellation, Sentier des Cinq Bonniers 25, 1390, Grez Doiceau, Belgium.
Marlou de RouwThe Constellation, Sentier des Cinq Bonniers 25, 1390, Grez Doiceau, Belgium.
Philip ForthThe Constellation, Sentier des Cinq Bonniers 25, 1390, Grez Doiceau, Belgium.
Sandra AlbertPublic Health Foundation of India, Plot 47, Sector 44, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122002, India.
Public Health Foundation of India · INIndian Institute of Management Shillong · IN

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo improve immunization coverage, most interventions that are part of the national immunization program in India address supply-side challenges. But, there is growing evidence that addressing demand-side factors can potentially contribute to improvement in childhood vaccination coverage in low- and middle-income countries. Participatory engagement of communities can address demand-side barriers while also mobilizing the community to advocate for better service delivery. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of a novel community engagement approach in improving immunization coverage. In our proposed intervention, we go a step beyond merely engaging the community and strive towards increasing 'ownership' by the communities. METHODS/

designWe adopt a cluster randomized design with two groups to evaluate the intervention in Assam, a state in the northeast region of India. To recruit villages and participants at baseline, we used a two-stage stratified random sampling method. We stratified villages; our unit of randomization, based on census data and randomly selected villages from each of the four strata. At the second-stage, we selected random sub-sample of eligible households (having children in the age group of 6-23 months) from each selected village. The study uses a repeated cross sectional design where we track the same sampled villages but draw independent random samples of households at baseline and endline. Total number of villages required for the study is 180 with 15 eligible HHs from each village. Post-baseline survey, we adopt a stratified randomization strategy to achieve better balance in intervention and control groups, leveraging information from the extensive baseline survey. DISCUSSION: The proposed intervention can help identify barriers to vaccination at the local level and potentially lead to more sustainable solutions over the long term. Our sampling design, sample size calculation, and randomization strategy address internal validity of our evaluation design. We believe that it would allow us to causally relate any observed changes in immunization coverage to the intervention.

trial registrationThe trial has been registered on 7th February, 2017 under the Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI), hosted at the ICMR's National Institute of Medical Statistics, having registration number CTRI/2017/02/007792 . This is the original study protocol.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansImmunization ProgramsIndiaInfantProgram EvaluationVaccination CoverageCommunity participationDemand-side interventionDPT3Full immunizationNorth-East IndiaOwnershipRandomized evaluationSALTStudy protocolUniversal immunization program

Identifiers

PMID29688845
PMCPMC5913885
OpenAlexW2805910908

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.