Trial reportBMJ open2024
Can an integrated intervention package including peer support increase the proportion of health facility births? A cluster randomised controlled trial in Northern Uganda.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02605369 (SURVIVAL PLUSS), which is not on this 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.
SURVIVAL PLUSS: Increasing Capacity for Mama-baby Survival in Post-conflict Uganda and South Sudan
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
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
objectiveTo assess the effect of an integrated intervention package compared with routine government health services on the frequency of health facility births.
settingThree subcounties of Lira district in Northern Uganda.
designA cluster randomised controlled trial where a total of 30 clusters were randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to intervention or standard of care.
participantsPregnant women at ≥28 weeks of gestation.
interventionsParticipants in the intervention arm received an integrated intervention package of peer support, mobile phone messaging and birthing kits during pregnancy while those in the control arm received routine government health services ('standard of care'). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of women giving birth at a health facility in the intervention arm compared with the control arm. Secondary outcomes were perinatal and neonatal deaths.
resultsIn 2018-2019, 995 pregnant women were included in 15 intervention clusters and 882 in 15 control clusters. The primary outcome was ascertained for all except one participant who died before childbirth. In the intervention arm, 754/994 participants (76%) gave birth at a health facility compared with 500/882 (57%) in the control arm. Participants in the intervention arm were 35% more likely to give birth at a health facility compared with participants in the control arm, (risk ratio 1.35 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.51)) and (risk difference 0.20 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.27)). Adjusting for baseline differences generated similar results. There was no difference in secondary outcomes (perinatal or neonatal mortality or number of postnatal visits) between arms.
conclusionThe intervention was successful in increasing the proportion of facility-based births but did not reduce perinatal or neonatal mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02605369.
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.