Qualitative study of acceptability, benefits, and feasibility of a food-based intervention among participants and stakeholders of the RATIONS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".