ArticlePLOS global public health2025
A cluster-randomized trial of household vs incentive-based tuberculosis contact investigation in rural South Africa: implementation reach.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The World Health Organization recommends TB contact investigation in high-burden countries. We examined the implementation reach of two contact investigation strategies in South Africa. Kharitode TB, a cluster-randomized crossover trial, compared household- and incentive-based contact investigation in 28 clinics (July 2016-January 2020). Clinics used each strategy for 18 months (separated by a six-month "washout"). Adults recently diagnosed with TB (index participants) were enrolled. In the household-based arm, contact persons were screened and provided sputum samples at home. In the incentive-based arm, index participants distributed referral coupons to their contacts, who received a $3.50 incentive upon presenting for screening at clinics. We used mixed-effects logistic regression with random intercepts for clinics to examine factors associated with index participant enrollment and sputum collection from contact persons. In the household-based arm, 782/1,269 (61.6%) index participants consented, 1,882 contact persons were enrolled and sputum samples were collected from 988/1,882 (52.5%). In the incentive-based arm, 780/1,295 (60.2%) index participants consented, 1,940 contact persons were enrolled and sputum was collected from 1,431/1,940 (73.8%). Index participants living with HIV (adjusted odds ratio, aOR=0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.83) or unknown HIV status (aOR=0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.20) were less likely to participate in the study. Contact persons in the incentive-based arm were more likely to provide a sputum sample compared to those in the household-based arm (aOR=2.12, 95% CI 1.80-2.50). Regardless of the study arm, cough (aOR=2.27, 95% CI 1.87-2.77), current smoking (aOR=2.22, 95% CI 1.63-3.02), and living with HIV (aOR=1.89, 95% CI 1.36-3.62) were associated with higher likelihood of sputum collection. There were gaps in implementation reach at the stages of contacting and enrolling index participants, enrolling individuals with HIV, and obtaining sputum, especially among those under 18 years and household contact persons.
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.