ArticlePloS one2021
Multi-site comparison of factors influencing progress of African insecticide testing facilities towards an international Quality Management System certification.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInsecticidal mosquito vector control products are vital components of malaria control programmes. Test facilities are key in assessing the effectiveness of vector control products against local mosquito populations, in environments where they will be used. Data from these test facilities must be of a high quality to be accepted by regulatory authorities, including the WHO Prequalification Team for vector control products. In 2013-4, seven insecticide testing facilities across sub-Saharan Africa, with technical and financial support from Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), began development and implementation of quality management system compliant with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to improve data quality and reliability. METHODS AND PRINCIPLE
findingsWe conducted semi-structured interviews, emails, and video-call interviews with individuals at five test facilities engaged in the IVCC-supported programme and working towards or having achieved GLP. We used framework analysis to identify and describe factors affeting progress towards GLP. We found that eight factors were instrumental in progress, and that test facilities had varying levels of control over these factors. They had high control over the training programme, project planning, and senior leadership support; medium control over infrastructure development, staff structure, and procurement; and low control over funding the availability and accessibility of relevant expertise. Collaboration with IVCC and other partners was key to overcoming the challenges associated with low and medium control factors.
conclusionFor partnership and consortia models of research capacity strengthening, test facilities can use their own internal resources to address identified high-control factors. Project plans should allow additional time for interaction with external agencies to address medium-control factors, and partners with access to expertise and funding should concentrate their efforts on supporting institutions to address low-control factors. In practice, this includes planning for financial sustainability at the outset, and acting to strengthen national and regional training capacity.
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.