Multicomponent intervention for controlling hypertension in the adult rural population of Pakistan: a protocol for a hybrid type III implementation-effectiveness cluster randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Though prior trials have shown the effectiveness of community-based hypertension detection and care delivery models, their adoption and translation to practice has been slow. In this study, we will develop and test strategies for the implementation and scale-up of a proven multicomponent hypertension intervention (MCHI) in Pakistan that comprises health education, blood pressure (BP) monitoring and referrals by lady health workers (LHWs) and hypertension management by physicians in primary care settings. Methods and analysis In this 24-month hybrid type III implementation-effectiveness cluster-randomised controlled trial, we will recruit 3000 adult hypertensive patients from two rural districts of Pakistan. We will engage public health sector managers, physicians and LHWs and use theConsolidatedFramework forImplementationResearch to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an already proven-to-be-effective MCHI. UsingExpertRecommendations forImplementingChange and the modified Delphi technique, a set of implementation strategies addressing barriers will be identified. The strategies will be categorised as level 1 (requiring a change in processes), level 2 (requiring a change in infrastructure) and level 3 (financial restructuring). Basic health units and 250–300 households from their catchment will be considered as clusters. Clusters will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to intervention and control. While MCHI will be offered in both trial arms (intervention and control), the aforementioned implementation strategies will be randomised to the intervention arm only, starting with level 1 and moving to levels 2 and 3 as needed. Baseline and 6-monthly follow-up surveys, each of 6 months duration, will be conducted to collect data from the recruited participants on sociodemographics, cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, CVD-related expenses and quality of life. Theprimary outcomewill be the mean difference in BP-lowering medications per participant between the intervention and control arms. The primary outcome will be analysed using a linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline value of the outcome. Additional outcomes includeimplementation outcomes: proportion of LHWs conducting health education, BP screening and monitoring, facility referrals and proportion of physicians diagnosing and treating hypertensive patients;effectiveness outcomes:proportion of participants with controlled BP and improved EQ-5D-5L score. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of Aga Khan University Pakistan (ERC # 2023-9084-26739). Findings will be reported to: (1) study participants; (2) funding body and institutes collaborating and supporting the study; (3) provincial and district health departments to inform policy; (4) presented at local, national and international conferences and (5) disseminated by peer-review publications Trial registration number NCT06726057 .
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 | 0.059 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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.
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".