Trial reportBMC public health2025
Effectiveness of a distance-learning vs standard training in the integrated management of childhood illnesses: a cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesss (IMCI) strategy has a lower coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the concept of distance learning IMCI in 2014 to improve uptake of the strategy. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a distance learning IMCI training compared with the standard IMCI training in the correct management of children presenting to primary health centers.
methodsThis cluster randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 parallel design was conducted at 26 Basic Health Units (BHUs) in Pakistan. Healthcare workers in BHUs (n = 13) randomized to the intervention arm were trained as per the dIMCI protocols while those (n = 13) randomized to the control arm were trained as per the standard protocol. The trained heathcare workers were followed for around five months and were evaluated in the management of childhood illnesses at their respective health facilities. Correct management, the principal outcome, was defined based on a case being correctly assessed (proficiency score of ≥ 6 out of the total score of 10), classified (compared to the gold standard physician), treated (compared to the gold standard physician), and counseled (proficiency score of ≥ 5 out of the total score of 7). Descriptive statistics, binary logistic regression, and 95% confidence interval were calculated using Stata version 18 adjusted for the clusters. P-values < 0.05 were regarded as significant.
resultsUnder-five children presented to the two arms were mostly similar in gender, age, duration of consultation with the healthcare worker, and presenting complaints. On logistic regression, the dIMCI training was found to be a significant factor in the correct classification (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.22-2.58), correct counseling (OR = 6.11,95% CI 3.06 - 12.19), and the overall management of children (OR = 3.35, 95% CI 2.03 - 5.52) with strong evidence against the model hypothesis at this sample size. The dIMCI training showed weak evidence against the model hypothesis in the domains of correct assessment (OR = 1.84, 95% CI 0.99-3.40) and correct treatment (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 - 2.31).
conclusionsHealth policymakers could consider the dIMCI an effective, feasible, and flexible alternative to standard IMCI training for scaling up the IMCI strategy.
trial registrationRegistered with www.chictr.org.cn , under ChiCTR1900027201 on 05/11/2019.
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.