Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37585729›Full record

Trial reportEuropean stroke journal2023

Secondary prevention by structured semi-interactive stroke prevention package in INDIA (SPRINT INDIA): Findings from the process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

Shweta Jain Verma, Puja Gulati, Ranjit J Injety, Deepti Arora, Aneesh Dhasan, Anusha Singhania, Himani Khatter, Meenakshi Sharma, Padmavathyamma Narayanapillai Sylaja, Jeyaraj Durai Pandian

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European stroke journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Lessons learned from qualitative fieldwork in a multilingual setting.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2024
    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

10 authors.

Shweta Jain VermaDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9824-9781
Puja GulatiSchool of Pharmacy, Desh Bhagat University, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, India.
Ranjit J InjetyDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Deepti AroraDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Aneesh DhasanDepartment of Neurology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Anusha SinghaniaDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Himani KhatterDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.
Meenakshi SharmaNon-Communicable Diseases Section, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.
Padmavathyamma Narayanapillai SylajaDepartment of Neurology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4896-8275
Jeyaraj Durai PandianDepartment of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0028-1968

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSecondary Prevention by Structured Semi-Interactive Stroke Prevention Package in INDIA Trial delivered secondary stroke awareness intervention to sub-acute stroke patients in form of workbook, videos and SMS across 31 centres in 12 languages. Trial was stopped for futility due to fewer vascular outcomes than anticipated. Trial results indicated that trial intervention, did not lead to reduction in vascular events. We carried out process evaluation, to evaluate trial implementation and participant's perspectives, to comprehend the trial's futile outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing mixed methods approach, qualitative interviews and quantitative data from case report forms, workbooks and questionnaires were analysed to measure intervention fidelity and contamination. Using purposive sampling, 115 interviews of patient-caregiver dyads and health professionals at 11 centres and 2 focus group discussions were held. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Iterative thematic analysis of qualitative data was done with RE-AIM and realist models. There was good fidelity to intervention and adherence to protocol; however, there was dilution of inclusion criteria by randomly enrolling uneducated and caregiver-dependent patients. Centre coordinators provided counselling to both arms, not specified by protocol, causing bias. Coordinators found it difficult to keep patients motivated to view intervention which was corroborated by fidelity questionnaire showing decreased viewing of intervention for a year. Cardiovascular protection improved in routine care by virtue of participating in trial. No contamination of intervention was reported.

conclusionThe intervention was acceptable by patients and caregivers, which could be made a community-based programme. Reasons identified for decreased viewing were repetitive content and non-availability of personal cellular device.

Indexed as

CaregiversStrokeFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansSecondary Preventioninterviewsmixed methodsprocess evaluationSecondary stroke preventionthematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID37585729
PMCPMC10683732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.