Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34424909›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Changing perception and improving knowledge of leprosy: An intervention study in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Anna T van 't Noordende, Suchitra Lisam, Vivek Singh, Atif Sadiq, Ashok Agarwal, Duane C Hinders, Jan Hendrik Richardus, Wim H van Brakel, Ida J Korfage

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna T van 't NoordendeNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6415-1057
Suchitra LisamNLR India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7465-5649
Vivek SinghNLR India, New Delhi, India.
Atif SadiqNLR India, New Delhi, India.
Ashok AgarwalNLR India, New Delhi, India.
Duane C HindersNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8491-8809
Jan Hendrik RichardusDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0564-6313
Wim H van BrakelNLR, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0277-2907
Ida J KorfageDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
NLR India · INErasmus MC · NLNetherlands Leprosy Relief · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSince ancient times leprosy has had a negative perception, resulting in stigmatization. To improve the lives of persons affected by leprosy, these negative perceptions need to change. The aim of this study is to evaluate interventions to change perceptions and improve knowledge of leprosy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe conducted a pre-post intervention study in Fatehpur and Chandauli districts, Uttar Pradesh, India. Based on six steps of quality intervention development (6SQuID) two interventions were designed: (1) posters that provided information about leprosy and challenged misconceptions, and (2) meetings with persons affected by leprosy, community members and influential people in the community. The effect of the interventions was evaluated in a mixed-methods design; in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and questionnaires containing a knowledge measure (KAP), two perception measures (EMIC-CSS, SDS) and an intervention evaluation tool. 1067 participants were included in Survey 1 and 843 in Survey 2. The interventions were effective in increasing knowledge of all participant groups, and in changing community and personal attitudes of close contacts and community members (changes of 19%, 24% and 13% on the maximum KAP, EMIC-CSS and SDS scores respectively, p<0.05). In Survey 1, 13% of participants had adequate knowledge of leprosy versus 53% in Survey 2. Responses showed stigmatizing community attitudes in 86% (Survey 1) and 61% (Survey 2) of participants and negative personal attitudes in 37% (Survey 1) and 19% (Survey 2). The number of posters seen was associated with KAP, EMIC-CSS and SDS scores in Survey 2 (p<0.001). In addition, during eight post-intervention focus group discussions and 48 interviews many participants indicated that the perception of leprosy in the community had changed. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Contextualized posters and community meetings were effective in changing the perception of leprosy and in increasing leprosy-related knowledge. We recommend studying the long-term effect of the interventions, also on behavior.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSocial PerceptionAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIndiaLeprosyMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisRegression AnalysisSocial StigmaSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34424909
PMCPMC8412405
OpenAlexW3194612845

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.