ArticleResearch square2026
A Multiphase Implementation of Ring Treatment: A Community-Engaged Control Program for T. Solium taeniasis/cysticercosis in Northern Peru.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cysticercosis (CC) is a zoonotic disease transmitted between pigs and humans, caused by the larval stage of T. solium that leads to neurological morbidity in humans and economic losses in pig-farming communities in low-resource rural regions. Ring Treatment (RT) is an evidence-based intervention that integrates a community participatory approach to provide antiparasitic treatment to households within 100-meters of an infected pig. This study aimed to evaluate the multiphase implementation of RT as a public health program in northern Peru, with a focus on feasibility, adoption, and sustainability. Methods: We conducted a multi-method, three-phase implementation study from 2019-2025 in Tumbes, Peru. Phase 1 involved a formative evaluation using the expanded Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for low- and middle-income countries. We used semi-structured interviews (n = 169), social network surveys (n = 341), and two process-mapping workshops (n = 26) to describe barriers, facilitators, and RT protocol adaptations. In phase 2, we piloted RT in a small health district, reviewed registries, and conducted community surveys and interviews for quality improvement. In phase 3, we rolled out RT in two districts and applied the RE-AIM framework to assess implementation outcomes. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data underwent rapid qualitative analysis and template analysis (thematic analysis for hierarchical coding). Results: Key facilitators included adaptability of existing health programs and strong engagement with community health workers (CHW) and communities. Barriers included high staff turnover, workload, and resource constraints. The pilot study achieved 75% treatment coverage among eligible populations, increased community knowledge of the CC transmission cycle, and prompted regional-level policy changes. During the RT rollout, 100% of health facilities established RT procedures, with moderate participation in training and treatment (53% and 87%). However, the COVID-19 pandemic and political instability limited the effectiveness of assessments and the completeness of data. Conclusions: RT is feasible and acceptable as a public health program for
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.