Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32955455›Full record

Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Social and Behavior Change Communication Interventions Delivered Face-to-Face and by a Mobile Phone to Strengthen Vaccination Uptake and Improve Child Health in Rural India: Randomized Pilot Study.

Mira Johri, Dinesh Chandra, Karna Georges Kone, Marie-Pierre Sylvestre, Alok K Mathur, Sam Harper, Arijit Nandi

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mira JohriCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5642-787X
Dinesh ChandraIndependent consultant, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1812-7566
Karna Georges KoneCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5622-5530
Marie-Pierre SylvestreCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5803-4615
Alok K MathurIndian Institute of Health Management Research University, Jaipur, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4196-045X
Sam HarperDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2767-1053
Arijit NandiDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3399-0536
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAIIHMR University · INMcGill University · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

CIHR 342296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn resource-poor settings, lack of awareness and low demand for services constitute important barriers to expanding the coverage of effective interventions. In India, childhood immunization is a priority health strategy with suboptimal uptake.

objectiveTo assess study feasibility and key implementation outcomes for the Tika Vaani model, a new approach to educate and empower beneficiaries to improve immunization and child health.

methodsA cluster-randomized pilot trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio was conducted in rural Uttar Pradesh, India, from January to September 2018. Villages were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. In each participating village, surveyors conducted a complete enumeration to identify eligible households and requested participation before randomization. Interventions were designed through formative research using a social marketing approach and delivered over 3 months using strategies adapted to disadvantaged populations: (1) mobile health (mHealth): entertaining educational audio capsules (edutainment) and voice immunization reminders via mobile phone and (2) face-to-face: community mobilization activities, including 3 small group meetings offered to each participant. The control group received usual services. The main outcomes were prespecified criteria for feasibility of the main study (recruitment, randomization, retention, contamination, and adoption). Secondary endpoints tested equity of coverage and changes in intermediate outcomes. Statistical methods included descriptive statistics to assess feasibility, penalized logistic regression and ordered logistic regression to assess coverage, and generalized estimating equation models to assess changes in intermediate outcomes.

resultsAll villages consented to participate. Gaps in administrative data hampered recruitment; 14.0% (79/565) of recorded households were nonresident. Only 1.4% (8/565) of households did not consent. A total of 387 households (184 intervention and 203 control) with children aged 0 to 12 months in 26 villages (13 intervention and 13 control) were included and randomized. The end line survey occurred during the flood season; 17.6% (68/387) of the households were absent. Contamination was less than 1%. Participation in one or more interventions was 94.0% (173/184), 78.3% (144/184) for the face-to-face strategy, and 67.4% (124/184) for the mHealth strategy. Determinants including place of residence, mobile phone access, education, and female empowerment shaped intervention use; factors operated differently for face-to-face and mHealth strategies. For 11 of 13 intermediate outcomes, regression results showed significantly higher basic health knowledge among the intervention group, supporting hypothesized causal mechanisms.

conclusionsA future trial of a new intervention model is feasible. The interventions could strengthen the delivery of immunization and universal primary health care. Social and behavior change communication via mobile phones proved viable and contributed to standardization and scalability. Face-to-face interactions remain necessary to achieve equity and reach, suggesting the need for ongoing health system strengthening to accompany the introduction of communication technologies.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 44840759; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN44840759.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneChild HealthChildCommunicationFemaleHumansIndiaInfantInfant, NewbornPilot ProjectsVaccinationchild healthdeveloping countriesglobal healthhealth promotionhealth services accessibilityimmunization programsimplementation sciencemHealthpilot projectsrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32955455
PMCPMC7546625
OpenAlexW3044670220

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.