MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409884062 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0004219

Qualitative study of acceptability, benefits, and feasibility of a food-based intervention among participants and stakeholders of the RATIONS trial

2025· article· en· W4409884062 on OpenAlexaff
Sunita Sheel Bandewar, Madhavi Bhargava, Hema Pisal, Anant Bhan, Ajay Meher, Anurag Bhargava

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsFocus groupQualitative researchFraming (construction)PovertyPsychologyNonprobability samplingNursingMedicinePublic relationsSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical scienceMarketingSociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A qualitative study was conducted during the RATIONS trial to explore the perceptions, experiences, and expectations of participants and stakeholders on the acceptability, benefits, and feasibility of the nutritional intervention to complement the trial findings for deeper exploration into why and how of these findings and other allied themes. Using purposive sampling, we recruited 58 individuals for 22 in-depth interviews (IDI) and four focus group discussions (FGDs) between January and June 2022. These included 12 patients with TB, six household contacts, and other stakeholders (18 trial members, 18 government community workers, and four National TB Elimination Program (NTEP) staff). All IDIs and FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated. The codes were generated using an inductive process and categorized manually into themes, with direct quotes describing the themes. The intervention was found to be acceptable in terms of cultural compatibility, quality, quantity, and duration; considered beneficial in helping tolerate the adverse effects of medications, weight gain, and resuming work; and was considered life-saving by many during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other observations included food-sharing in the control arm, inability to regain pre-disease functional status despite weight gain, and preference for in-kind support. Community health workers expressed confidence in its feasibility and willingness to take responsibility for its implementation. The NTEP staff considered it feasible if necessary resources were provided. This qualitative inquiry reflected the perspectives and lived experiences of households experiencing poverty, food insecurity, TB and the stakeholders serving them. Their voices are relevant in framing policy and practice in the NTEP and future research in India and similar low-resource settings. The food-based intervention was perceived as acceptable, feasible, and beneficial for the recipients and the NTEP. Opinion on cash or support in kind was divided; many preferred in-kind support over cash, but others expressed a requirement for both.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.445
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.064 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207