ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2023
Remote evaluation of STH program coverage: Experiences from the DeWorm3 study, India.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disparities in deworming coverage between children with and without disabilities: insights from the DeWorm3 trial in India.BMJ global health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe DeWorm3 trial is a multi-country study testing the feasibility of interrupting transmission of soil-transmitted helminths by community-wide mass drug administration (cMDA). Treatment coverage during cMDA delivery was validated by in-person coverage evaluation surveys (CES) after each round of treatment. A mobile phone-based CES was carried out in India when access to households was restricted during the COVID-19 lockdown.
methodsTwo focus group discussions were conducted with the survey implementers to document their experiences of conducting phone-based CES via mobile-phone voice calls. PRINCIPAL
findingsIn the phone-based CES, only 56% of sampled households were reached compared to 89% during the in-person CES (89%). This was due to phone numbers being wrongly recorded, or calls being unanswered leading to a higher number of households that had to be sampled in order to achieve the sample size of 2,000 households in phone-based CES compared in-person CES (3,600 and 2,352 respectively). Although the phone-based CES took less time to complete than in person coverage evaluations, the surveyors highlighted the lack of gender representation among phone survey participants as it was mostly men who answered calls and were then interviewed. The surveyors also mentioned that eliciting responses to open-ended questions and confirming treatment compliance from every member of the household was challenging during phone based CES. These observations were confirmed by analysing the survey participation data which showed women's participation in CES was significantly lower in phone-based CES (66%) compared to in-person CES (94%) (Z = -22.38; p<0.01) and that a significantly higher proportion of households provided proxy responses in phone-based CES (51%) compared to in-person CES (21%) (Z = 20.23; p<0.01).
conclusionsThe phone-based CES may be a viable option to evaluate treatment coverage but issues such as participation bias, gender inclusion, and quality of responses will need to be addressed to optimize this methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.