MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005826469 · doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3714-8

Sustainable, healthy cities: protocol of a mixed methods evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial for Aedes control in Brazil using a community mobilization approach

2020· article· en· W3005826469 on OpenAlexafffund
Kate Zinszer, Andréa Caprara, António Lima, Stéphanie Degroote, Monica Zahreddine, Kellyanne Abreu, Mabel Carabalí, Katia Charland, Mayana Azevedo Dantas, José Wellington, Beatriz Parra, Florence Fournet, Denis Pérez, Émilie Robert, Christian Dagenais, Tarik Benmarhnia, Neil Andersson, Valéry Ridde

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalMcGill UniversityThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCommunity mobilizationMedicineDengue feverPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialCluster randomised controlled trialEnvironmental healthParticipatory action researchSeroconversionDemographyFamily medicineNursingEconomic growthImmunologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dengue is increasing in its global presence with an estimated 4 billion people at-risk of infection in at least 128 countries. Despite the promising results of EcoHealth and community mobilization approaches to Aedes reduction, more evidence of their efficacy on reducing dengue risk is needed. The principal research question is to determine if interventions based upon community mobilization reduce the risk of dengue virus infection among children 3 to 9 years old compared to usual dengue control practice in Fortaleza, Brazil. METHODS: The present study will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) design with randomization at the census tract level with equal allocation to the two arms. In each arm, there will be 34 clusters of 86 children between 3 to 9 years old for an expected total of 5848 children enrolled in the study, assuming a risk reduction of 29.5% based upon findings from a previous multi-site cRCT. The primary outcomes are rates of anti-dengue Immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion and adult female Aedes density. The intervention is based upon a participatory health research approach, Socializing Evidence for Participatory Action (SEPA), where the research evidence is used to foster community engagement and ownership of the health issue and solution. Following allocation, intervention communities will develop and implement their own solutions that will likely include a wide variety of collective events and media approaches. Data collection activities over a period of 3 years include household visits for blood collection, household surveys, and entomological surveys; and qualitative activities including focus groups, in-depth interviews, and document analysis to evaluate the process, acceptability, fidelity, and sustainability of the intervention. Study participants will be aware of their assignment and all research staff will be blinded although the intervention assignment will likely be revealed to field staff through interaction with participants. DISCUSSION: The results of our study will provide evidence on community mobilization as an intervention for dengue control. We anticipate that if community mobilization is effective in Fortaleza, the results of this study will help develop evidence-based vector control programs in Brazil, and also in other countries struggling with Aedes-transmitted diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN66131315, registration date: 1 October 2018.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207