Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35925959›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Experiences of sharing results of community based serosurvey with participants in a district of Maharashtra, India.

Neha Salvi, Krishna Chaaithanya Itta, Abhishek Lachyan, Alvira Z Hasan, Christine Prosperi, Muthusamy Santhosh Kumar, Jeromie Wesley Vivian Thangaraj, Ojas Kaduskar, Vaishali Bhatt, Gajanan N Sapkal and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

17 authors.

Neha SalviDepartment of Health Research, Model Rural Health Research Unit, Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.
Krishna Chaaithanya IttaDepartment of Health Research, Model Rural Health Research Unit, Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.
Abhishek LachyanDepartment of Health Research, Model Rural Health Research Unit, Dahanu, Maharashtra, India.
Alvira Z HasanInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Christine ProsperiInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Muthusamy Santhosh KumarICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India.
Jeromie Wesley Vivian ThangarajICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India.
Ojas KaduskarICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, India.
Vaishali BhattICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, India.
Gajanan N SapkalICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, India.
Manoj MurhekarICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India.
Nivedita GuptaDivision of Epidemiology and Communicable Diseases, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.
Sanjay MehendalePD Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Kyla HayfordInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
William J MossInternational Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6579-3513
Sanjay ChauhanICMR- National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health, Mumbai, India.
Ragini KulkarniICMR- National Institute for Research in Reproductive and Child Health, Mumbai, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6238-2436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of organisations, including medical associations, recommend that research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study. We recently completed a study involving nine serosurveys from 2018 to 2020 in five districts of India among three age groups (children 9 months to < 5 years; 5 to < 15 years of age, and women 15 to < 50 years of age before and after the measles and rubella (MR) vaccination campaigns). In Palghar district of Maharashtra all individuals in 30 selected clusters were enumerated, and 13 individuals per age group were randomly sampled. We established the procedures to return the results to the respondents for each stage of the survey. Of the 1,166 individuals selected for the measles and rubella serosurvey, 971 (83%) agreed to participate and were enrolled. Participants were informed that they will only be contacted if they test seronegative for measles and/or rubella antibodies. Overall, 140 individuals enrolled in the survey tested seronegative for IgG antibodies to measles and/or rubella viruses; were provided the reports and informed to seek medical advice. Upon follow up by phone, 10% (14) of the 140 participants reported to have been vaccinated. In this paper we discuss the procedures, experiences and considerations in returning results to participants in a community-based measles and rubella serosurvey. Although the lessons learned are specific to post measles-rubella vaccine campaign serosurvey in India, they might be helpful to those contemplating sharing results to participants of large scale survey settings.

Indexed as

MeaslesRubellaAntibodies, ViralChildFemaleHumansIndiaInfantMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineMeasles VaccineRubella VaccineVaccinationAntibodies, ViralMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineMeasles VaccineRubella Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID35925959
PMCPMC9352079

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.