Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33043302›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

Implementation fidelity and acceptability of an intervention to improve vaccination uptake and child health in rural India: a mixed methods evaluation of a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

Myriam Cielo Pérez, Dinesh Chandra, Georges Koné, Rohit Singh, Valery Ridde, Marie-Pierre Sylvestre, Aaditeshwar Seth, Mira Johri

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Myriam Cielo PérezCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Tour Saint-Antoine, Porte S03-102, 850, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9601-6933
Dinesh ChandraIndependent Consultant Tika Vaani, New Delhi, India.
Georges KonéManagement Sciences for Health (MSH)/USAID, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Rohit SinghGram Vaani Community Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Valery RiddeCentre de recherche en santé publique, Université de Montréal, 7101 avenue du Parc, Montréal, Québec Canada.
Marie-Pierre SylvestreCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Tour Saint-Antoine, Porte S03-102, 850, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9 Canada.
Aaditeshwar SethGram Vaani Community Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Mira JohriCentre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Tour Saint-Antoine, Porte S03-102, 850, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9 Canada.
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAIndian Institute of Technology Delhi · INInserm · FRVoluntary Health Association Of India · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Tika Vaani intervention, an initiative to improve basic health knowledge and empower beneficiaries to improve vaccination uptake and child health for underserved rural populations in India, was assessed in a pilot cluster randomized trial. The intervention was delivered through two strategies: mHealth (using mobile phones to send vaccination reminders and audio-based messages) and community mobilization (face-to-face meetings) in rural Indian villages from January to September 2018. We assessed acceptability and implementation fidelity to determine whether the intervention delivered in the pilot trial can be implemented at a larger scale.

methodsWe adapted the Conceptual Framework for implementation fidelity to assess acceptability and fidelity of the pilot interventions using a mixed methods design. Quantitative data sources include a structured checklist, household surveys, and mobile phone call patterns. Qualitative data came from field observations, intervention records, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with project recipients and implementers. Quantitative analyses assessed whether activities were implemented as planned, using descriptive statistics to describe participant characteristics and the percentage distribution of activities. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis and in the light of the implementation fidelity model to explore moderating factors and to determine how well the intervention was received.

resultsFindings demonstrated high (86.7%) implementation fidelity. A total of 94% of the target population benefited from the intervention by participating in a face-to-face group meeting or via mobile phone. The participants felt that the strategies were useful means for obtaining information. The clarity of the intervention theory, the motivation, and commitment of the implementers as well as the periodic meetings of the supervisors largely explain the high level of fidelity obtained. Geographic distance, access to a mobile phone, level of education, and gender norms are contextual factors that contributed to heterogeneity in participation.

conclusionsAlthough the intervention was evaluated in the context of a randomized trial that could explain the high level of fidelity obtained, this evaluation provides confirmatory evidence that the results of the study reflect the underlying theory. The mobile platform coupled with community mobilization was well-received by the participants and could be a useful way to improve health knowledge and change behavior.

trial registrationISRCTN 44840759 (22 April 2018).

Indexed as

AdherenceChild healthDeveloping countriesGlobal healthImplementation fidelityImplementation SciencemHealth programmixed methods evaluationPilot studyProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID33043302
PMCPMC7542710
OpenAlexW3092076193

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.