Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34732513›Full record

Trial reportBMJ global health2021

Effectiveness of participatory women's groups scaled up by the public health system to improve birth outcomes in Jharkhand, eastern India: a pragmatic cluster non-randomised controlled trial.

Nirmala Nair, Prasanta K Tripathy, Rajkumar Gope, Shibanand Rath, Hemanta Pradhan, Suchitra Rath, Amit Kumar, Vikash Nath, Parabita Basu, Amit Ojha and 9 more

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Annals of global health · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

19 authors.

Nirmala NairEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Prasanta K TripathyEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Rajkumar GopeEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Shibanand RathEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Hemanta PradhanEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Suchitra RathEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Amit KumarEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Vikash NathEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Parabita BasuEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Amit OjhaEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Andrew CopasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Tanja Aj HouwelingDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hassan Haghparast-BidgoliInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Akay MinzJharkhand State Health Mission, Ranchi, India.
Pradeep BaskeyJharkhand State Health Mission, Ranchi, India.
Manir AhmedJharkhand State Health Mission, Ranchi, India.
Vasudha ChakravarthyDevelopment Solutions, New Delhi, India.
Riza MahantaDevelopment Solutions, New Delhi, India.
Audrey ProstInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK audrey.prost@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6121-8132

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe WHO recommends community mobilisation with women's groups practising participatory learning and action (PLA) to improve neonatal survival in high-mortality settings. This intervention has not been evaluated at scale with government frontline workers.

methodsWe did a pragmatic cluster non-randomised controlled trial of women's groups practising PLA scaled up by government front-line workers in Jharkhand, eastern India. Groups prioritised maternal and newborn health problems, identified strategies to address them, implemented the strategies and evaluated progress. Intervention coverage and quality were tracked state-wide. Births and deaths to women of reproductive age were monitored in six of Jharkhand's 24 districts: three purposively allocated to an early intervention start (2017) and three to a delayed start (2019). We monitored vital events prospectively in 100 purposively selected units of 10 000 population each, during baseline (1 March 2017-31 August 2017) and evaluation periods (1 September 2017-31 August 2019). The primary outcome was neonatal mortality.

resultsWe identified 51 949 deliveries and conducted interviews for 48 589 (93.5%). At baseline, neonatal mortality rates (NMR) were 36.9 per 1000 livebirths in the early arm and 39.2 in the delayed arm. Over 24 months of intervention, the NMR was 29.1 in the early arm and 39.2 in the delayed arm, corresponding to a 24% reduction in neonatal mortality (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98), including 26% among the most deprived (AOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). Twenty of Jharkhand's 24 districts achieved adequate meeting coverage and quality. In these 20 districts, the intervention saved an estimated 11 803 newborn lives (min: 1026-max: 20 527) over 42 months, and cost 41 international dollars per life year saved.

conclusionParticipatory women's groups scaled up by the Indian public health system reduced neonatal mortality equitably in a largely rural state and were highly cost-effective, warranting scale-up in other high-mortality rural settings.

trial registrationISRCTN99422435.

Indexed as

Public HealthWomenFemaleHumansIndiaInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornRural Populationchild healthmaternal healthpublic Health

Identifiers

PMID34732513
PMCPMC8572384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.