MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4393252519 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102546

Sustainability and impact of an intervention to improve initiation of tuberculosis preventive treatment: results from a follow-up study of the ACT4 randomized trial

2024· article· en· W4393252519 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Dick Menzies, Joseph Obeng, Panji Fortuna Hadisoemarto, Rovina Ruslami, Mênonli Adjobimey, Dina Fisher, Leila Barss, Nancy Bedingfield, Richard Long, Catherine Paulsen, James C. Johnston, Kamila Romanowski, Victoria Cook, Greg J. Fox, Thu Anh Nguyen, Chantal Valiquette, Olivia Oxlade, Federica Fregonese, Andrea Benedetti

Notice bibliographique

RevueEClinicalMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Établissements canadiensBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Clinical trialTuberculosisCluster (spacecraft)SurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: In a cluster randomized trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02810678) a flexible but comprehensive health system intervention significantly increased the number of household contacts (HHC) identified and started on tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT). A follow-up study was conducted one year later to test the hypotheses that these effects were sustained, and were reproducible with a simplified intervention. Methods: We conducted a follow-up study from May 1, 2018 until April 30, 2019, as part of a multinational cluster randomized trial. Eight sites in 4 countries that had received the intervention in the original trial received no further intervention; eight other sites in the same countries that had not received the intervention (control sites in the original trial) now received a simplified version of the intervention. This consisted of repeated local evaluation of the Cascade of care for TB infection, and stakeholder decision making. The number of HHC identified and starting TPT were repeatedly measured at all 16 sites and expressed as rates per 100 newly diagnosed index TB patients. The sustained effect of the original intervention was estimated by comparing these rates after the intervention in the original trial with the last 6 months of the follow-up study. The reproducibility was estimated by comparing the pre-post intervention changes in rates at sites receiving the original intervention with the pre-post changes in rates at sites receiving the later, simplified intervention. Findings: With regard to the sustained impact of the original intervention, compared to the original post-intervention period, the number of HHC identified and treated per 100 newly diagnosed TB patients was 10 more (95% confidence interval: 84 fewer to 105 more), and 1 fewer (95% CI: 22 fewer to 20 more) respectively up to 14 months after the end of the original intervention. With regard to the reproducibility of the simplified intervention, at sites that had initially served as control sites, the number of HHC identified and treated per 100 TB patients increased by 33 (95% CI: -32, 97), and 16 (-69, 100) from 3 months before, to up to 6 months after receiving a streamlined intervention, although differences were larger, and significant if the post-intervention results were compared to all pre-intervention periods. Interpretation: Up to one year after it ended, a health system intervention resulted in sustained increases in the number of HHC identified and starting TPT. A simplified version of the intervention was associated with non-significant increases in the identification and treatment of HHC. Inferences are limited by potential bias due to other temporal effects, and the small number of study sites. Funding: Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant number 143350).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,191
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,035
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,444
Écart entre enseignants0,402 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEClinicalMedicineMême sujetTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyTravaux en français237 207