Trial reportSpinal cord2020
Understanding how a community-based intervention for people with spinal cord injury in Bangladesh was delivered as part of a randomised controlled trial: a process evaluation.
Trial report in Spinal cord, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Telerehabilitation for individuals with spinal cord injury in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature.Spinal cord · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Challenges in traumatic spinal cord injury care in developing countries - a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Social disconnectedness and perceived social isolation in persons with spinal cord injury/dysfunction living in the community: A scoping review.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
designMixed methods study
settingCommunity, Bangladesh
objectivesTo understand how a community-based intervention for people with spinal cord injury (SCI) in Bangladesh was delivered as part of a randomised controlled trial and to gauge the perceptions of participants and healthcare professionals to the intervention.
methodsA community-based intervention was administered to 204 participants as part of a large randomised controlled trial (called the CIVIC trial). Case-managers followed-up participants with regular telephone calls and home visits over the first 2 years after discharge. The following data were collected alongside the trial: (i) chart audit of telephone calls and home visits (ii) recordings of 20 telephone calls (iii) interviews with 14 Intervention participants and four healthcare professionals including three case-managers.
resultsParticipants received the target number of telephone calls and home visits. Pressure injuries were identified as a problem during at least one telephone call by 43% of participants. Participants and case-managers valued regular telephone calls and home visits, and believed that calls and visits prevented complications and alleviated social isolation. Participants trusted case-managers and were confident in the care and advice provided. Case-managers expressed concerns that people with SCI in Bangladesh face many problems impacting on well-being and motivation stemming from poverty, limited employment opportunities, societal attitudes and inaccessible environments.
conclusionA community-based intervention involving regular telephone calls and home visits was administered as intended and was well received by the recipients of the care. Nonetheless, people with SCI in Bangladesh face economic and social problems which cannot be fully addressed by this type of intervention alone.
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.