ArticleBMC health services research2019
Protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial of the Learning Club intervention for women's health, and infant's health and development in rural Vietnam.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Data-driven quality improvement program to prevent hospitalisation and improve care of people living with coronary heart disease: Protocol for a process evaluation.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLearning Clubs is a multi-component intervention to address the eight common risk factors for women's health, and infant's health and development in resource-constrained settings. We are testing in a cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Vietnam whether this intervention improves cognitive development in children when they are aged two. There are few comprehensive process evaluations of complex interventions to optimise early childhood development. The aim is to conduct a planned process evaluation of the Learning Clubs intervention in Vietnam.
methodsThe evaluation will be conducted alongside the Learning Clubs trial using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Four domains will be included in the evaluation: [1] Context - how contextual factors affect the implementation and outcomes; [2] Implementation - what aspects of the Learning Clubs intervention are actually delivered and how well the intervention is delivered; [3] Mechanism of impact - how the intervention produces changes in the primary and secondary outcomes; and [4] National integration - how the intervention can be scaled up for application nationally. Purposive sampling will be used to recruit project stakeholders from commune, provincial and national levels. Results of the process evaluation will be integrated with those of the outcome and economic evaluations to provide a comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of the Learning Clubs intervention for early childhood development in rural Vietnam. DISCUSSION: Results of the evaluation will provide evidence about the implementation of the intervention and explanations for any differences in the outcomes between participants in intervention and control conditions. The evaluation will be integrated into each stage of the outcome assessments, but will be implemented by a bilingual team independent of the team implementing the intervention. It will therefore provide evidence which will not be influenced by or influence the intervention and will inform both generalisation to other settings and scalability in Vietnam.
trial registrationTrial registration number ACTRN12617000442303 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. Registered 27/03/2017. Prospectively registered.
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.