ArticlePloS one2018
The feasibility of a training course for clubfoot treatment in Africa: A mixed methods study.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of clubfoot training programmes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Tropical doctor · 2020Pooled it
- Education and training for health professionals on disability inclusion: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Adapting a Participatory Group Programme for Caregivers of Children with Complex Neurodisability from Low-, Middle-Income Countries to a High-Income Setting: Moving from "Baby Ubuntu" to "Encompass".International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Global clubfoot treatment in 2023: an overview of advances and outcomes.BMJ global health · 2025Observational
- Prevalence and pattern of congenital clubfoot among less than 5-year-old children in Ethiopia; cross-sectional based study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no available training programme with standard elements for health workers treating clubfoot in Africa. Standardised training with continued mentorship has the potential to improve management of clubfoot. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of such a training programme among clubfoot providers in Africa, and assess implications for training effectiveness and scale up.
methodWe used participatory research with trainers from 18 countries in Africa over two years to devise, pilot and refine a 2-day basic and a 2-day advanced clubfoot treatment course. (The Africa Clubfoot Training or 'ACT' Course.) The pilots involved training 113 participants. Mixed methods (both qualitative and quantitative) were used for evaluation. We describe and synthesise the results using the eight elements proposed by Bowen et al (2010) to assess feasibility. All participants completed feedback questionnaires, and interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. We undertook a narrative description of themes raised in the participant questionnaires and interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to compare pre- and post-course scores for confidence and knowledge.
results113 participants completed pre and post-course measures (response rate = 100%). Mean participant confidence increased from 64% (95%CI: 59-69%) to 88% (95%CI: 86-91%) post course. Mean participant knowledge increased from 55% (95%CI: 51-60%) to 78% (95%CI: 76-81%) post course. No difference was found in mean for either subscale of cadre or sex. The qualitative analysis generated themes under four domains: 'practical learning in groups', 'interactive learning', 'relationship with the trainer' and 'ongoing supervision and mentorship'.
conclusionThe Africa Clubfoot Training package to teach health care workers to manage clubfoot is likely to be feasible in Africa. Future work should evaluate its impact on short and long term treatment outcomes and a process evaluation of implementation is required.
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.