Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32663211›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Comparative evaluation of community interventions for the immigrant population of Latin American origin at risk for Chagas disease in the city of Barcelona.

Jordi Gómez I Prat, Paula Peremiquel-Trillas, Isabel Claveria Guiu, Johanna Caro Mendivelso, Estefa Choque, Juan José de Los Santos, Elena Sulleiro, Hakima Ouaarab Essadek, Pedro Albajar Viñas, Carlos Ascaso Terren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Population movements, borders, and Chagas disease.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

10 authors.

Jordi Gómez I PratDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7041-9526
Paula Peremiquel-TrillasDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Isabel Claveria GuiuDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Johanna Caro MendivelsoDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Estefa ChoqueDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Juan José de Los SantosFundación Mundo Sano-España, Madrid, Spain.
Elena SulleiroDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Hakima Ouaarab EssadekDrassanes-Vall d'Hebron International Health Unit, International Health Programme, Institut Català de la Salut, Barcelona, Spain.
Pedro Albajar ViñasDepartment of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases, Cluster for Communicable Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Carlos Ascaso TerrenDepartment of Public Health, University of Barcelona, Spain, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChagas disease presents bio-psycho-social and cultural determinants for infected patients, their family members, close friends, and society. For this reason, diagnosis and treatment require an active approach and an integral focus, so that we can prevent the disease from creating stigma and exclusion, as is actively promoting access to diagnosis, medical attention and social integration. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain) from 2004 to 2017. After an increased detection rates of CHD in our region, the process of construction of community strategies started (2004-2013). Different community interventions with informational, educational, and communication components were designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated. The results of the evaluation helped to determine which intervention should be prioritized: 1) workshop; 2) community event; 3) in situ screening. Afterwards, those strategies were implemented (2014-2017).

resultsEach of the three strategies resulted in a different level of coverage, or number of people reached. The in situ screening interventions reached the highest coverage (956 persons, 58.98%).Clear differences exist (p-value<0.001) between the three strategies regarding the percentage of screenings and diagnoses carried out. The largest number was in the in situ screening intervention, with a total of 830 persons screened despite the greatest number of diagnoses was among the workshop participants (33 persons, 20.75% of those screened). The prevalence of infection found is similar among the three strategies, ranging from 16.63% to 22.32% of the screened patients (p-value = 0.325).

conclusionsThe results of the study show that community interventions seem to be necessary to improve access to diagnosis and treatment of CHD in the area of Barcelona. They also show which strategy is the most appropriate based on the detected needs of the community, the proposed objectives of the intervention, and the given socio-temporal context.

Indexed as

Emigrants and ImmigrantsChagas DiseaseCommunity MedicineFamilyFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansLatin AmericaMaleSpain

Identifiers

PMID32663211
PMCPMC7360029

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.