Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31895945›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2020

Effectiveness of a scalable group-based education and monitoring program, delivered by health workers, to improve control of hypertension in rural India: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Dilan Giguruwa Gamage, Michaela A Riddell, Rohina Joshi, Kavumpurathu R Thankappan, Clara K Chow, Brian Oldenburg, Roger G Evans, Ajay S Mahal, Kartik Kalyanram, Kamakshi Kartik and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Impact of patient care teams on blood pressure control in patients with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

22 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Dilan Giguruwa GamageDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6382-2779
Michaela A RiddellDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8852-0569
Rohina JoshiGeorge Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kavumpurathu R ThankappanAchutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4536-2684
Clara K ChowGeorge Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Brian OldenburgMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7712-5413
Roger G EvansCardiovascular Disease Program, Biomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9241-0757
Ajay S MahalSchool of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7246-3261
Kartik KalyanramRishi Valley Rural Health Centre, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6837-0062
Kamakshi KartikRishi Valley Rural Health Centre, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1896-6818
Oduru SureshDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nihal ThomasDepartment of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Gomathyamma K MiniAchutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
Pallab K MaulikGeorge Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Velandai K SrikanthDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Simin ArabshahiDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ravi P VarmaAchutha Menon Centre for Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1147-9622
Rama K GuggillaGeorge Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7486-5977
Fabrizio D'EspositoMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Thirunavukkarasu SathishMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2016-4964
Mohammed AlimGeorge Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1802-2203
Amanda G ThriftDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8533-4170
Monash Health · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUSree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology · INThe University of Sydney · AUAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUChristian Medical College, Vellore · INMedical University of Białystok · PLThe George Institute for Global Health · GBUniversity of Lancashire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew methods are required to manage hypertension in resource-poor settings. We hypothesised that a community health worker (CHW)-led group-based education and monitoring intervention would improve control of blood pressure (BP). METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a baseline community-based survey followed by a cluster randomised controlled trial of people with hypertension in 3 rural regions of South India, each at differing stages of epidemiological transition. Participants with hypertension, defined as BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medication, were advised to visit a doctor. In each region, villages were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (UC) in a 1:2 ratio. In intervention clusters, trained CHWs delivered a group-based intervention to people with hypertension. The program, conducted fortnightly for 3 months, included monitoring of BP, education about hypertension, and support for healthy lifestyle change. Outcomes were assessed approximately 2 months after completion of the intervention. The primary outcome was control of BP (BP < 140/90 mm Hg), analysed using mixed effects regression, clustered by village within region and adjusted for baseline control of hypertension (using intention-to-treat principles). Of 2,382 potentially eligible people, 637 from 5 intervention clusters and 1,097 from 10 UC clusters were recruited between November 2015 and April 2016, with follow-up occurring in 459 in the intervention group and 1,012 in UC. Mean age was 56.9 years (SD 13.7). Baseline BP was similar between groups. Control of BP improved from baseline to follow-up more in the intervention group (from 227 [49.5%] to 320 [69.7%] individuals) than in the UC group (from 528 [52.2%] to 624 [61.7%] individuals) (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1; P = 0.001). In secondary outcome analyses, there was a greater decline in systolic BP in the intervention than UC group (-5.0 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.1 to -3.0; P < 0.001) and a greater decline in diastolic BP (-2.1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.6; P < 0.006), but no detectable difference in the use of BP-lowering medications between groups (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.9; P = 0.34). Similar results were found when using imputation analyses that included those lost to follow-up. Limitations include a relatively short follow-up period and use of outcome assessors who were not blinded to the group allocation.

conclusionsWhile the durability of the effect is uncertain, this trial provides evidence that a low-cost program using CHWs to deliver an education and monitoring intervention is effective in controlling BP and is potentially scalable in resource-poor settings globally.

trial registrationThe trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2016/02/006678).

Indexed as

Community Health WorkersRural PopulationAdolescentAdultAgedBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCluster AnalysisDelivery of Health CareFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypertensionIndiaMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID31895945
PMCPMC6939905
OpenAlexW2997771578

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.