Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34271913›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Using path analysis to test theory of change: a quantitative process evaluation of the MapSan trial.

Sarah Bick, Helen Buxton, Rachel P Chase, Ian Ross, Zaida Adriano, Drew Capone, Jackie Knee, Joe Brown, Rassul Nalá, Oliver Cumming and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02362932 (A Controlled Before and After Study to Measure the Effect of an Urban Sanitation Intervention on Child Health, in Low-income Neighborhoods of Maputo, Mozambique), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT02362932 nacompletednot on this map

A Controlled Before and After Study to Measure the Effect of an Urban Sanitation Intervention on Child Health, in Low-income Neighborhoods of Maputo, Mozambique

TypeinterventionalSponsorLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineRan2015 to 2018Enrolled1,866ConditionsDiarrhea, HelminthiasisArmsSanitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. PersistentEnvironmental science & technology · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Sarah BickDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6870-5320
Helen BuxtonDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rachel P ChaseWexner Medical Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1503-4954
Ian RossDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2218-5400
Zaida AdrianoWE Consult, Maputo, Mozambique.
Drew CaponeSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2138-6382
Jackie KneeDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0834-8488
Joe BrownSchool of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5200-4148
Rassul NaláMinistério da Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Saúde Maputo, Maputo, Mozambique.
Oliver CummingDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5074-8709
Robert DreibelbisDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. robert.dreibelbis@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9716-0419

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough theory-driven evaluations should have empirical components, few evaluations of public health interventions quantitatively test the causal model made explicit in the theory of change (ToC). In the context of a shared sanitation trial (MapSan) in Maputo, Mozambique, we report findings of a quantitative process evaluation assessing intervention implementation, participant response and impacts on hypothesised intermediary outcomes on the pathway to trial health outcomes. We examine the utility of path analysis in testing intervention theory using process indicators from the intervention's ToC.

methodsProcess data were collected through a cross-sectional survey of intervention and control compounds of the MapSan trial > 24-months post-intervention, sampling adult residents and compound leaders. Indicators of implementation fidelity (dose received, reach) and participant response (participant behaviours, intermediary outcomes) were compared between trial arms. The intervention's ToC (formalised post-intervention) was converted to an initial structural model with multiple alternative pathways. Path analysis was conducted through linear structural equation modelling (SEM) and generalised SEM (probit model), using a model trimming process and grouped analysis to identify parsimonious models that explained variation in outcomes, incorporating demographics of respondents and compounds.

resultsAmong study compounds, the MapSan intervention was implemented with high fidelity, with a strong participant response in intervention compounds: improvements were made to intermediary outcomes related to sanitation 'quality' - latrine cleanliness, maintenance and privacy - but not to handwashing (presence of soap / soap residue). These outcomes varied by intervention type: single-cabin latrines or multiple-cabin blocks (designed for > 20 users). Path analysis suggested that changes in intermediary outcomes were likely driven by direct effects of intervention facilities, with little contribution from hygiene promotion activities nor core elements expected to mediate change: a compound sanitation committee and maintenance fund. A distinct structural model for two compound size subgroups (≤ 20 members vs. > 20 members) explained differences by intervention type, and other contextual factors influenced specific model parameters.

conclusionsWhile process evaluation found that the MapSan intervention achieved sufficient fidelity and participant response, the path analysis approach applied to test the ToC added to understanding of possible 'mechanisms of change', and has value in disentangling complex intervention pathways.

trial registrationMapSan trial registration: NCT02362932 Feb-13-2015.

Indexed as

SanitationToilet FacilitiesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHumansHygieneMozambiqueComplex interventionMozambiquePath analysisProcess evaluationSanitationStructural equation modellingTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID34271913
PMCPMC8285873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.