ArticleBMC public health2025
The Minha Casa Minha Vida social housing programme and leprosy in Brazil: an analysis of the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort (2010-2015).
Article 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring housing interventions can contribute to improved living conditions which are strong socioeconomic determinants of leprosy. We estimated the association between the social housing programme Minha Casa Minha Vida (MCMVP) and leprosy new cases.
methodsWe followed families registered in the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort linked with MCMVP receipt and nationwide registries of leprosy between 2010 and 2015. We used Cox regression weighted by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to assess the hazard ratio (HR) for the effect of MCMVP on leprosy. Weights were obtained by propensity score using demographic and socioeconomic covariates at baseline. Sensitivity analyses were done considering potential delays to receiving MCMVP, municipality of residence population size and by controlling by the baseline risk of leprosy among potential recipients.
resultsWe followed up 24,584,768 individuals, of which 618,883 (2.5%) were MCMVP recipients, and detected 8,874 new leprosy cases during the study period. Leprosy incidence was higher among MCMVP recipients (13.32/100,000 pyr; 95%CI = 11.45-15.49) compared to non-recipients (11.72/100,000 pyr; 95%CI = 11.47-11.97). MCMVP recipients had higher leprosy incidence (HR = 1.66; 95%CI = 1.34-2.06), compared to non-recipients. Point estimates were lower when considering a delay of 6 or 12 months to moving into the new household (HR = 1.53; 95%CI = 1.20-1.95 and HR = 1.37; 95%CI = 1.05-1.78, respectively), in small/medium municipalities (≤ 300,000 inhabitants) (HR = 1.95; 95%CI = 1.51-2.52), and higher among individuals who subsequently became MCMVP beneficiaries before receiving the benefit (HR = 2.29; 95%CI = 1.93-2.72).
conclusionsThis study found a higher risk of leprosy associated with MCMVP that may reflect reverse causality. Our findings suggest the programme is, in fact, reaching the most vulnerable individuals, as intended in its objectives. Besides, the higher risk of leprosy among MCMVP beneficiaries even before receiving the benefit observed in sensitivity analysis may reflect residual confounding factors related.
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.