Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34905570›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A comparison of three types of targeted, community-based methods aimed at promoting early detection of new leprosy cases in rural parts of three endemic states in India.

Karthikeyan Govindasamy, Annamma S John, Vivek Lal, Mohammad Arif, Raju Moturu Solomon, Jyoti Ghosal, Ambarish Dutta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Karthikeyan GovindasamyResearch Domain, The Leprosy Mission Trust India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5500-1308
Annamma S JohnResearch Domain, The Leprosy Mission Trust India, New Delhi, India.
Vivek LalGerman Leprosy and Tuberculosis Relief Association (GLRA India), Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Mohammad ArifNetherlands Leprosy Relief India, New Delhi, India.
Raju Moturu SolomonResearch Domain, The Leprosy Mission Trust India, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4233-6843
Jyoti GhosalRegional Medical Research Centre, Indian Council of Medical Research, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India.
Ambarish DuttaIndian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India.
Indian Council of Medical Research · INInstitute of Public Health Bengaluru · INNetherlands Leprosy Relief · NLNew Delhi Tuberculosis Center · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndia achieved elimination of leprosy nationally in 2005, but since then the number of patients with grade 2 disability at diagnosis increased steadily indicating delay in diagnosis. Therefore, there was a need for public health interventions which can increase case finding in their earlier stage. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three such community-based interventions; 1) Enhancement of community awareness on leprosy; 2) Education and motivation of "Index" leprosy cases; and 3) Involvement of Non-Formal Health Practitioners (NFHPs) to promote early detection of new cases of leprosy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThree community-based interventions were implemented between April 2016 and March 2018, embedded within the National Leprosy Eradication Program (NLEP) of India. Interventions were 1) increasing awareness through involvement of Gram Panchayat (local government) in the community regarding early signs of leprosy (Awareness), 2) providing health education and motivating newly diagnosed leprosy patients to bring suspects from their contacts (Index) and 3) training local non-formal health practitioners (NFHP). Each intervention was implemented in a group of ten blocks (sub-division of district) with an additional ten blocks as control (with no intervention). The main outcomes were number of new cases detected and number of grade 2 disability among them. They were obtained from the routine NLEP information system and compared between these interventions. On an average, there was an addition of 1.98 new cases in Awareness blocks, 1.13 in NFHP blocks and 1.16 cases in Index intervention blocks per month per block after adjusting for changes in control blocks during the same period. In terms of ratio, there was a 61%, 40% and 41% increase in case notification in awareness, Index and NFHP intervention, respectively. Overall, the percentage of grade 2 disability across intervention blocks declined.

conclusionThe Awareness intervention appears to be more effective in detection of new cases, compared to Index case motivation and sensitization of NFHPs. However, it is important to stress that while selecting strategies to increase early diagnosis it is important to determine, which is the most appropriate for each context or area and must be decided depending on the local context.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesCommunity ParticipationEarly DiagnosisHealth EducationHealth PromotionHumansIndiaLeprosyPublic HealthRural Population

Identifiers

PMID34905570
PMCPMC8670664
OpenAlexW4200479082

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.