Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37967058›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

Comparison of door-to-door and fixed-point delivery of azithromycin distribution for child survival in Niger: A cluster-randomized trial.

Ahmed M Arzika, Ramatou Maliki, Abdou Amza, Alio Karamba, Nasser Gallo, Bawa Aichatou, Ismael Issa Sara, Diallo Beidi, Laminou Maliki Haroun, Farissatou Oumarou and 10 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04774991 (Azithromycin for Child Survival in Niger), which is not on this 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.

NCT04774991 phase4completednot on this map

Azithromycin for Child Survival in Niger: Delivery Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2021 to 2023Enrolled10,925ConditionsMortality, Child Health, ImplementationArmsAzithromycin for Oral Suspension
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

20 authors.

Ahmed M ArzikaCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Ramatou MalikiCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Abdou AmzaProgramme Nationale de Santé Oculaire, Niamey, Niger.
Alio KarambaCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Nasser GalloCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Bawa AichatouCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Ismael Issa SaraCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Diallo BeidiCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Laminou Maliki HarounCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Farissatou OumarouCentre de Recherche et Interventions en Santé Publique, Birni N'Gaoure, Niger.
Elodie LebasFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Brittany PetersonFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Emily ColbyFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9787-3512
William NguyenFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3594-6186
Zijun LiuFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Meagan C FitzpatrickCenter for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5248-2668
Benjamin F ArnoldFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6105-7295
Thomas M LietmanFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Kieran S O'BrienFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1962-5321
AVENIR Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent evidence indicates mass azithromycin distribution reduces under-5 mortality. This intervention is being considered for child survival programs in high mortality sub-Saharan African settings. The delivery approach used in prior studies required a full-time census and distribution team, which is not feasible for most programs. To determine the optimal programmatic approach to delivery, this study aimed to compare treatment coverage, costs, and acceptability of different delivery approaches with existing community health workers (CHWs). This cluster-randomized trial included rural and peri-urban communities in Dosso, Niger (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04774991). A random sample of 80 eligible communities was randomized 1:1 to biannual door-to-door or fixed-point delivery of oral azithromycin to children 1-59 months old over 1 year. Data analysts alone were masked given the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was community-level treatment coverage defined as the number of children treated recorded by CHWs divided by the number of eligible children determined using a post-distribution census. Costs were monitored through routine administrative data collection and micro-costing. The census included survey questions on intervention acceptability among caregivers, community leaders, and CHWs. After randomization, 1 community was excluded due to inaccuracies in available administrative data, resulting in 39 communities receiving door-to-door delivery. At the second distribution, community-level mean treatment coverage was 105% (SD 44%) in the door-to-door arm and 92% (SD 20%) in the fixed-point arm (Mean difference 13%, 95% CI -2% to 28%, P-value = 0.08). The total cost per dose delivered was $1.91 in the door-to-door arm and $2.51 in the fixed-point arm. Indicators of acceptability were similar across stakeholder groups in both arms, with most respondents in each group indicating a preference for door-to-door. Overall, door-to-door delivery is the preferred approach to azithromycin distribution in this setting and might reach more children at a lower cost per dose delivered than fixed-point. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04774991.

Identifiers

PMID37967058
PMCPMC10651009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.