Trial reportPloS one2019
The evaluation of the Woman's Condom marketing approach: What value did peer-led interpersonal communication add to the promotion of a new female condom in urban Lusaka?
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Urban Environment and Disparities in Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes in the Global South: a Scoping Review.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2023Article
- Involving men and boys in family planning: A systematic review of the effective components and characteristics of complex interventions in low- and middle-income countries.Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Narrative Engagement and Interpersonal Communication about Substance Use on Adolescent Substance Use Behaviors: A Case Study of keepin' it REAL.Western journal of communication · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During a mass media campaign accompanying the launch of the Maximum Diva Woman's Condom (WC) in Lusaka, Zambia, a cluster-randomized evaluation was implemented to measure the added impact of a peer-led interpersonal communication (IPC) intervention on the awareness and uptake of the new female condom (FC). The WC and mass media campaign were introduced simultaneously in 40 urban wards in April 2016; half of the wards were randomly assigned to the treatment (IPC intervention) with cross-sectional surveys conducted before (n = 2,364) and one year after (n = 2,430) the start of the intervention. A pre-specified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis measured the impact of randomization to IPC at the community level. In adjusted ITT models, there were no statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups. Due to significant implementation challenges, we also conducted exploratory secondary analyses to estimate effects among those who attended an IPC event (n = 66) using instrumental variable and inverse probability weighting analyses. In addition to increases in FC identification (IPC attendees had higher reported use of any condom, improved perceptions of FC's, and were more likely to have discussed contraceptive use with their partner as compared to non-attendees). The introduction of a new FC product combined with an IPC intervention significantly increased general knowledge and awareness in the community as compared to media alone, but did not lead to detectable community level impacts on other primary outcomes of interest. Observational evidence from our study suggests that IPC attendance is associated with increased use and negotiation. Future studies should explore the intensity and duration of IPC programming necessary to achieve detectable community level impacts on behavior. Trial Registration: AEARCTR-0000899.
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.