ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Acceptability of a community health worker-led health literacy intervention on lifestyle modification among hypertensive and diabetes patients in the City of Harare, Zimbabwe.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Working with community health workers is a vital strategy to improve health at a community level in low- and middle-income countries. Our study assessed the acceptability of a community health worker-led health literacy intervention on lifestyle modification among hypertensive and diabetes patients in the City of Harare, Zimbabwe. The intervention consisted of face-to-face individual educational sessions and support visits, delivered by trained community health workers at either the patient's home or the primary care clinic. We embedded this qualitative study within a cluster randomized trial, which assessed the intervention's effectiveness. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews with 3 community health nurses and 25 patients as well as 3 focus group discussions with CHWs. We analyzed the data manually using the deductive analysis method based on a coding framework structured according to the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability. Participants expressed optimism and anxiety regarding the intervention. All community nurses and CHWs believed that the intervention was effective in improving adherence to recommended lifestyle modifications and overall health outcomes among the patients. Patients felt that the intervention was ethically sound. All community health workers and community nurses reported a clear understanding of the intervention's goals and methods. Some patients felt that some aspects of the intervention needed to be improved. There was a consensus that the benefits associated with the intervention outweighed the costs. Some patients reported that they were not confident in participating in the intervention because some of the recommended lifestyle modifications were beyond their control. Whilst there were positive sentiments regarding the intervention's potential to empower patients and improve health outcomes, challenges related to patients' perceived burdens must be addressed. Future iterations of the intervention should focus on enhancing support for CHWs and ensuring that patients' preferences are catered for.
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.