Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32685150›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2020

Pilot implementation of

C E Draper, A Prioreschi, L J Ware, S Lye, S A Norris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Retention in theBMJ global health · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Evaluating implementation of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist for preconception and pregnancy within the Bukhali trial in Soweto, South Africa.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Young women's social support networks during pregnancy in Soweto, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Development, Implementation, and Process Evaluation ofGlobal implementation research and applications · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

C E DraperSouth African Medical Research Council/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2885-437X
A PrioreschiSouth African Medical Research Council/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6913-0706
L J WareSouth African Medical Research Council/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
S LyeLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
S A NorrisSouth African Medical Research Council/Wits Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
South African Medical Research Council · ZAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis article describes the learnings from the pilot phase of the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative, a preconception health trial for 18- to 25-year-old women in Soweto, South Africa.

methodsThe study compares two arms focussed on either physical and mental health (intervention; delivered by community health workers - 'Health Helpers') or standard of care plus (control; standard access to healthcare plus additional telephonic input on 'life skills'; delivered by call centre assistants). These are collectively referred to as

resultsThe findings clustered within three themes: (1) challenges for young women in Soweto, (2) priorities for young women in Soweto and (3) implementation challenges and perceptions of the intervention. Challenges were mostly related to tough socioeconomic circumstances and less prioritisation of living a healthier life. The priorities of employment and educational opportunities reflected the socioeconomic challenges, where health was not recognised as priority. The main challenge to participation and compliance with the trial was that young women in Soweto generally wanted a tangible and preferably financial and immediate benefit. Community peer sessions, despite being recommended by young women as part of the intervention development, were not successful. Many women also moved between multiple households within Soweto, which flagged concerns for a cluster trial and risk of contamination.

conclusionPreconception health trials should consider socioeconomic challenges present in urban poor contexts. Learnings from the pilot phase significantly affected the design and implementation of the main

Indexed as

implementation scienceinterventionLow- and middle-income countrypreconception carepreconception healthwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID32685150
PMCPMC7346699
OpenAlexW3041790344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.