ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2025
Coverage evaluation of mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis in four endemic districts of Jharkhand, India.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 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
backgroundLymphatic filariasis (LF) remains endemic in several districts of Jharkhand despite repeated Mass Drug Administration (MDA) rounds. This study assessed drug coverage, compliance, and associated factors in four endemic districts: Deoghar, Dumka, Giridih, and Godda.
methodsA community-based cross-sectional Coverage Evaluation Survey (CES) was conducted within six weeks of MDA. The double-drug regimen (Diethylcarbamazine and Albendazole) (DA) was administered in Deoghar and Giridih, and the triple-drug regimen (Ivermectin, Diethylcarbamazine, and Albendazole) (IDA) in Dumka and Godda. Using multistage random sampling of clusters and systematic selection of adjacent households within each cluster, 2,400 households (14,782 individuals) were surveyed. Coverage indicators were calculated per World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
resultsOverall drug coverage was 52.1%, and epidemiological drug coverage was 49.2%. Complete household-level MDA drug coverage was 45.0%, highest in Dumka (58.2%) and lowest in Giridih (28.8%). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, significant predictors of complete household-level MDA drug coverage included higher educational level (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.05), residence in Dumka (aOR: 1.63) or Godda (aOR: 1.40), tribal (aOR: 2.27) or rural area (aOR: 2.02), awareness of LF (aOR: 1.87), knowledge that LF is mosquito-borne (aOR: 1.32), prior MDA communication (aOR: 2.64), and participation in two or more previous MDA rounds (aOR: 2.30). Larger household size was negatively associated (aOR: 0.88). Among MDA participants, adverse events were significantly more common when drugs were consumed on an empty stomach (p < 0.001).
conclusionNone of the districts achieved WHO-recommended epidemiological coverage thresholds (≥ 65% for DA and ≥ 85% for IDA). Strengthening community engagement and pre-campaign communication is essential for improving MDA outcomes and accelerating LF elimination.
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.