Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37291578›Full record

Trial reportMalaria journal2023

Community engagement among forest goers in a malaria prophylaxis trial: implementation challenges and implications.

Franca Conradis-Jansen, Rupam Tripura, Thomas J Peto, James J Callery, Bipin Adhikari, Mom Ean, Monnaphat Jongdeepaisal, Christopher Pell, Panarasri Khonputsa, Riccardo Murgia and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Malaria journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Franca Conradis-Jansen *Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical School, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Rupam Tripura *Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thomas J PetoMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
James J CalleryMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Bipin AdhikariMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mom EanMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Monnaphat JongdeepaisalMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Christopher PellAmsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Panarasri KhonputsaMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Riccardo MurgiaMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Siv SovannarothCenter for Parasitology, Entomology and Malaria Control, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Olaf MüllerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical School, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Phaik Yeong CheahMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Arjen M DondorpMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lorenz von SeidleinMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Richard J MaudeMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. richard@tropmedres.ac.
Mahidol University · THHeidelberg University · DEAmsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development · NLCambodia National Malaria Center · KHThe Open University · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 220211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria transmission in Southeast Asia is increasingly confined to forests, where marginalized groups are exposed primarily through their work. Anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis may help to protect these people. This article examines the effectiveness and practical challenges of engaging forest-goers to participate in a randomized controlled clinical trial of anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis with artemether-lumefantrine (AL) versus a control (multivitamin, MV) for malaria in northeast Cambodia.

methodsThe impact of engagement in terms of uptake was assessed as the proportion of people who participated during each stage of the trial: enrolment, compliance with trial procedures, and drug intake. During the trial, staff recorded the details of engagement meetings, including the views and opinions of participants and community representatives, the decision-making processes, and the challenges addressed during implementation.

resultsIn total, 1613 participants were assessed for eligibility and 1480 (92%) joined the trial, 1242 (84%) completed the trial and received prophylaxis (AL: 82% vs MV: 86%, p = 0.08); 157 (11%) were lost to follow-up (AL: 11% vs MV: 11%, p = 0.79); and 73 (5%) discontinued the drug (AL-7% vs MV-3%, p = 0.005). The AL arm was associated with discontinuation of the study drug (AL: 48/738, 7% vs 25/742, 3%; p = 0.01). Females (31/345, 9%) were more likely (42/1135, 4%) to discontinue taking drugs at some point in the trial (p = 0.005). Those (45/644, 7%) who had no previous history of malaria infection were more likely to discontinue the study drug than those (28/836, 3%) who had a history of malaria (p = 0.02). Engagement with the trial population was demanding because many types of forest work are illegal; and the involvement of an engagement team consisting of representatives from the local administration, health authorities, community leaders and community health workers played a significant role in building trust. Responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the community promoted acceptability and increased confidence in taking prophylaxis among participants. Recruitment of forest-goer volunteers to peer-supervise drug administration resulted in high compliance with drug intake. The development of locally-appropriate tools and messaging for the different linguistic and low-literacy groups was useful to ensure participants understood and adhered to the trial procedures. It was important to consider forest-goers` habits and social characteristics when planning the various trial activities.

conclusionsThe comprehensive, participatory engagement strategy mobilized a wide range of stakeholders including study participants, helped build trust, and overcame potential ethical and practical challenges. This locally-adapted approach was highly effective as evidenced by high levels of trial enrolment, compliance with trial procedures and drug intake.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsMalariaArtemetherArtemether, Lumefantrine Drug CombinationFemaleForestsHumansAntimalarialsArtemetherArtemether, Lumefantrine Drug CombinationChemoprophylaxisClinical trialCommunity engagementMalariaSoutheast Asia

Identifiers

PMID37291578
PMCPMC10248338
OpenAlexW4379875971

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.