Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31377568›Full record

Trial reportAmerican heart journal2019

Cardiovascular risk factor reduction by community health workers in rural India: A cluster randomized trial.

Rajnish Joshi, Twinkle Agrawal, Farah Fathima, Thammattoor Usha, Tinku Thomas, Dominic Misquith, Shriprakash Kalantri, Natesan Chidambaram, Tony Raj, Alben Singamani and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American heart journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Gut Microbiota and Liver Health: Meta-Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Rajnish JoshiDepartment of Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India. Electronic address: rajnish.genmed@aiimsbhopal.edu.in.
Twinkle AgrawalDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Farah FathimaDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Thammattoor UshaDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Tinku ThomasDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Dominic MisquithDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Shriprakash KalantriDepartment of Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sevagram, India.
Natesan ChidambaramDepartment of Medicine, Rajamuthaiah Medical College, Annamalainagar, India.
Tony RajDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Alben SingamaniDepartment of Clinical Research, Narayana Health Bangalore, India.
Shailendra HegdeSRM Medical College and Research Center, Tamil Nadu, India.
Denis XavierDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
P J DevereauxPopulation Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Prem PaisDepartments of Pharmacology, Community Medicine, and Division of Clinical Research and Training, St John's Medical College and Research Instiutute, Bangalore, India.
Rajeev GuptaDepartment of Preventive Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Eternal Heart Care Centre and Research Institute, Jaipur, India.
Salim YusufPopulation Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal · INEternal Hospital · INMahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences · INMcMaster University · CANarayana Health · INPopulation Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268200900025C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need to identify and test low-cost approaches for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction that can enable health systems to achieve such a strategy.

objectiveCommunity health workers (CHWs) are an integral part of health-care delivery system in lower income countries. Our aim was to assess impact of CHW based interventions in reducing CVD risk factors in rural households in India.

methodsWe performed an open-label cluster-randomized trial in 28 villages in 3 states of India with the household as a unit of randomization. Households with individuals at intermediate to high CVD risk were randomized to intervention and control groups. In the intervention group, trained CHWs delivered risk-reduction advice and monitored risk factors during 6 household visits over 12 months. Households in the non-intervention group received usual care. Primary outcomes were a reduction in systolic BP (SBP) and adherence to prescribed BP lowering drugs.

resultsWe randomized 2312 households (3261 participants at intermediate or high risk) to intervention (1172 households) and control (1140 households). At baseline prevalence of tobacco use (48.5%) and hypertension (34.7%) were high. At 12 months, there was significant decline in SBP (mmHg) from baseline in both groups- controls 130.3 ± 21 to 128.3 ± 15; intervention 130.3 ± 21 to 127.6 ± 15 (P < .01 for before and after comparison) but there was no difference between the 2 groups at 12 months (P = .18). Adherence to antihypertensive drugs was greater in intervention vs control households (74.9% vs 61.4%, P = .001).

conclusionA 12-month CHW-led intervention at household level improved adherence to prescribed drugs, but did not impact SBP. To be more impactful, a more comprehensive solution that addresses escalation and access to useful therapies is needed.

Indexed as

Risk Reduction BehaviorAntihypertensive AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesCluster AnalysisCommunity Health WorkersFemaleHumansHypertensionIndiaLinear ModelsMaleMedication AdherenceNeeds AssessmentPovertyProgram EvaluationPublic HealthAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID31377568
PMCPMC6842688
OpenAlexW2950595095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.