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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and Acceptability of a Breastfeeding Support Intervention Among Mothers of Infants Under Six Months Old Discharged From Malnutrition Treatment in Kilifi County.Maternal & child nutrition · 2026Article
- Assessing the implementation fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability of community-based house improvement for malaria control in southern Malawi: a mixed-methods study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Identifying opportunities to optimize mass drug administration for soil-transmitted helminths: A visualization and descriptive analysis using process mapping.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Assessing the fidelity of a behavioural intervention involving academic detailing in general practice: a sub-study of the 'Implementing work-related Mental health guidelines in general PRacticE' (IMPRovE) trial.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Assessing implementation fidelity of an on-site pharmacist intervention within Australian residential aged care facilities: A mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Implementation fidelity to HIV assisted partner services (aPS) during scale-up in western Kenya: a convergent mixed methods study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Assessing the implementation fidelity of HPV self-collection offered by community health workers during home visits (the EMA strategy): a case study in a low-middle-resource setting in Argentina.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Use of community engagement interventions to improve child immunisation in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Review
- Considering social inequalities in health in large-scale testing for COVID-19 in Montréal: a qualitative case study.BMC public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.