Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36251696›Full record

ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2022

Implementation approaches for leprosy prevention with single-dose rifampicin: A support tool for decision making.

Fleur Ter Ellen, Kaat Tielens, Christine Fenenga, Liesbeth Mieras, Anne Schoenmakers, Mohammad A Arif, Nienke Veldhuijzen, Ruth Peters, Eliane Ignotti, Christa Kasang and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Unraveling Drug Resistance inInternational journal of microbiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

15 authors.

Fleur Ter EllenVU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Kaat TielensVU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Christine FenengaGlobal Health Inclusive, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Liesbeth MierasNLR, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6943-1712
Anne SchoenmakersNLR, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mohammad A ArifConsultant, Delhi, India.
Nienke VeldhuijzenLeprosy Research Initiative, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ruth PetersVU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Eliane IgnottiState University of Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, Brazil.
Christa KasangGLRA/DAHW, Wurzburg, Germany.
Benedict QuaoNational Leprosy Control Programme, Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana.
Peter SteinmannSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Allschwil Switzerland, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Nand Lal BanstolaNLR Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Joshua OragaIDEA, Nairobi, Kenya.
Teky BudiawanNLR Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past 15 years, the decline in annually detected leprosy patients has stagnated. To reduce the transmission of Mycobacterium leprae, the World Health Organization recommends single-dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for contacts of leprosy patients. Various approaches to administer SDR-PEP have been piloted. However, requirements and criteria to select the most suitable approach were missing. The aims of this study were to develop an evidence-informed decision tool to support leprosy programme managers in selecting an SDR-PEP implementation approach, and to assess its user-friendliness among stakeholders without SDR-PEP experience. METHODOLOGY: The development process comprised two phases. First, a draft tool was developed based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews with experts from various countries, organisations and institutes. This led to: an overview of existing SDR-PEP approaches and their characteristics; understanding the requirements and best circumstances for these approaches; and, identification of relevant criteria to select an approach. In the second phase the tool's usability and applicability was assessed, through interviews and a focus group discussion with intended, inexperienced users; leprosy programme managers and non-governmental organization (NGO) staff. PRINCIPAL

findingsFive SDR-PEP implementation approaches were identified. The levels of endemicity and stigma, and the accessibility of an area were identified as most relevant criteria to select an approach. There was an information gap on cost-effectiveness, while successful implementation depends on availability of resources. Five basic requirements, irrespective of the approach, were identified: stakeholder support; availability of medication; compliant health system; trained health staff; and health education. Two added benefits of the tool were identified: its potential value for advocacy and for training.

conclusionAn evidence-informed SDR-PEP decision tool to support the selection of implementation approaches for leprosy prevention was developed. While the tool was evaluated by potential users, more research is needed to further improve the tool, especially health-economic studies, to ensure efficient and cost-effective implementation of SDR-PEP.

Indexed as

LeprosyRifampinDecision MakingHumansLeprostatic AgentsMycobacterium lepraeLeprostatic AgentsRifampin

Identifiers

PMID36251696
PMCPMC9612816

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.