Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30943958›Full record

Trial reportBMC women's health2019

Women's circles as a culturally safe psychosocial intervention in Guatemalan indigenous communities: a community-led pilot randomised trial.

Anne Marie Chomat, Aura Isabel Menchú, Neil Andersson, Manuel Ramirez-Zea, Duncan Pedersen, Alexandra Bleile, Paola Letona, Ricardo Araya

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC women's health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Indigenous-led health care partnerships in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    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

8 authors.

Anne Marie ChomatParticipatory Research at McGill (PRAM), Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges-3rd floor, Suite 300, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada. anne.chomat@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8191-3295
Aura Isabel MenchúCIET International Guatemala, 5ª calle 14-35, apartamento 304, Edificio Las Tapias, zona 3, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala.
Neil AnderssonParticipatory Research at McGill (PRAM), Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges-3rd floor, Suite 300, Montréal, QC, H3S 1Z1, Canada.
Manuel Ramirez-ZeaResearch Center for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases (CIIPEC), Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama (INCAP), Calzada Roosevelt 6-25 zona 11, Apartado Postal 1188, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Duncan PedersenDepartment of Psychiatry and Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Alexandra BleileCentre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Paola LetonaResearch Center for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases (CIIPEC), Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama (INCAP), Calzada Roosevelt 6-25 zona 11, Apartado Postal 1188, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Ricardo ArayaCentre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndigenous Maya women in Guatemala show some of the worst maternal health indicators worldwide. Our objective was to test acceptability, feasibility and impact of a co-designed group psychosocial intervention (Women's Circles) in a population with significant need but no access to mental health services.

methodsA parallel group pilot randomised study was undertaken in five rural Mam and three periurban K'iche' communities. Participants included 84 women (12 per community, in seven of the communities) randomly allocated to intervention and 71 to control groups; all were pregnant and/or within 2 years postpartum. The intervention consisted of 10 sessions co-designed with and facilitated by 16 circle leaders. Main outcome measures were: maternal psychosocial distress (HSCL-25), wellbeing (MHC-SF), self-efficacy and engagement in early infant stimulation activities. In-depth interviews also assessed acceptability and feasibility.

resultsThe intervention proved feasible and well accepted by circle leaders and participating women. 1-month post-intervention, wellbeing scores (p-value 0.008) and self-care self-efficacy (0.049) scores were higher among intervention compared to control women. Those women who attended more sessions had higher wellbeing (0.007), self-care and infant-care self-efficacy (0.014 and 0.043, respectively), and early infant stimulation (0.019) scores.

conclusionsThe pilot demonstrated acceptability, feasibility and potential efficacy to justify a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Co-designed women's groups provide a safe space where indigenous women can collectively improve their functioning and wellbeing.

trial registrationISRCTN13964819 . Registered 26 June 2018, retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

AdultCommunity NetworksFemaleGuatemalaHealth Services, IndigenousHumansInfantMaternal Health ServicesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePilot ProjectsPostpartum PeriodPregnancyRetrospective StudiesRural PopulationYoung AdultCo-designCultural safetyGuatemalaIndigenous womenMaternal mental healthParticipatory researchWomen’s circles

Identifiers

PMID30943958
PMCPMC6448212

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.