Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30463524›Full record

Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2018

A randomized trial to assess retention rates using mobile phone reminders versus physical contact tracing in a potential HIV vaccine efficacy population of fishing communities around Lake Victoria, Uganda.

Noah Kiwanuka, Juliet Mpendo, Stephen Asiimwe, Julius Ssempiira, Annet Nalutaaya, Betty Nambuusi, Mathias Wambuzi, Brian Kabuubi, Annemarie Namuniina, Frederick Oporia and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

12 authors.

Noah KiwanukaSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda. nkiwanuka@gmail.com.
Juliet MpendoUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.
Stephen AsiimweKabwohe Clinical Research Center (KCRC), Kabwohe, Uganda.
Julius SsempiiraSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
Annet NalutaayaUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.
Betty NambuusiClinical Trials Unit, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Mathias WambuziUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.
Brian KabuubiUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.
Annemarie NamuniinaUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.
Frederick OporiaSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
Annet NanvubyaUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.
Ali SsetaalaUVRI-IAVI HIV Vaccine Program, Entebbe, Uganda.

Funding

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (NL) TA.2011.40200.035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh retention (follow-up) rates improve the validity and statistical power of outcomes in longitudinal studies and the effectiveness of programs with prolonged administration of interventions. We assessed participant retention in a potential HIV vaccine trials population of fishing communities along Lake Victoria, Uganda.

methodsIn a community-based individual randomized trial, 662 participants aged 15-49 years were randomized to either mobile phone or physical contact tracing reminders and followed up at months 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 18 post-enrolment. The visit schedules aimed at mimicking a vaccine efficacy trial representing an early interval (months 1-6) where most vaccinations would be administered and a later period of post-vaccination follow-up. The primary outcome was retention measured as the proportion of post-baseline follow up visits completed by a participant. Retention was estimated in early and later follow-up intervals, and overall for all the six follow-up visits. Adjusted differences in retention between the study arms were determined by multivariable logistic regression using Stata® 14. One participant was later dropped from the analysis because of age ineligibility discovered after enrolment.

resultsOf the expected total follow up visits of 3966 among 661 participants, 84.1% (3334) were attained; 82.1% (1626/1980) in the phone arm and 86% (1708/1986) in the physical tracing arm (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences in retention were observed between the study arms in the first 6 months but thereafter, retention was significantly higher for physical contact reminders than mobile phones; 91.5% versus 82.1% (p < 0.0001) at month 12 and 82.8% versus 75.4%, (p = 0.021) at month 18. Controlling for sex, age, education, occupation, community location, length of stay and marital status, the odds of good retention (completing 5 out of 6 follow-up visits) were 1.56 (95% CI;1.08-2.26, p = 0.018) for physical contact tracing compared to mobile phone tracing. Other statistically significant predictors of good retention were residing on islands and having stayed in the fishing communities for 5 or more years.

conclusionsAmong fishing communities of Lake Victoria, Uganda, 84% of follow-up visits can be attained and participant retention is higher using physical contact reminders than mobile phones. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201311000696101 ( http://www.pactr.org/ ). retrospectively registered on 05 November, 2013.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneImmunization ProgramsPatient ParticipationReminder SystemsAdolescentAdultAIDS VaccinesAmbulatory CareContact TracingFemaleHumansLakesLost to Follow-UpMaleMiddle AgedOccupationsAIDS VaccinesFishing communitiesHIV vaccineRetention (follow-up) rates

Identifiers

PMID30463524
PMCPMC6249980

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.