Trial reportBMJ open2026
Effectiveness and acceptability of biometrics to evaluate intervention coverage and contamination in a cluster randomised trial of community-based sexual and reproductive health services for youth in Zimbabwe.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03719521 (Community Based Interventions to Improve HIV Outcomes in Youth), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Community Based Interventions to Improve HIV Outcomes in Youth: a Cluster Randomised Trial in Zimbabwe (CHIEDZA)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
objectivesLow intervention uptake and contamination can dilute effects of cluster randomised trials (CRTs). We investigated the feasibility of digital fingerprints to assess intervention coverage and contamination in a CRT of community-based sexual and reproductive health services for youth (CHIEDZA).
methods24 clusters in Zimbabwe were randomly allocated to intervention/control. In intervention clusters, CHIEDZA services were provided in community halls for 30 months. A population-based survey of youth aged 18-24 (700/cluster) was conducted to ascertain impact. Digital fingerprints were collected from service attendees and survey participants, and the datasets were linked to assess intervention coverage at population level in intervention clusters and contamination in control clusters. Multilevel logistic regression estimated the association of hall distance with service uptake.
resultsBetween April 2019 and March 2022, 36 991 clients attended the CHIEDZA service and 99.9% used biometric registration. In the survey 13 675/17 682 (77.3%) participants completed biometric registration: 1182 refused, 1235 bypassed and 1590 could not register.CHIEDZA service coverage in the intervention clusters was 23.1% and contamination was 3.7%. Against biometric registration match, self-reported service attendance had 75.3% sensitivity (95% CI 73.1% to 77.5%) and 92.7% specificity (95% CI 92.0% to 93.4%). Odds of CHIEDZA service use reduced by 52% for every 1km distance (OR: 0.48 95% CI 0.44 to 0.54). DISCUSSION: Biometric identification was feasible and acceptable in a community setting without time pressure. In population-based surveys additional technological challenges emerged. Biometrics enabled good estimation of intervention coverage and validated self-reported data. Youth community services must overcome distance barriers.
conclusionBiometric identification is useful for assessment of CRT coverage and contamination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03719521.
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.