Mubiru 2015.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods |
Design: controlled before‐after study Unit of randomization: none |
|
Participants |
Inclusion criteria: children aged < 5 years, heads of households and caregivers of children aged < 5 years, and women of reproductive age (15–49 years of age) in intervention and comparison districts Exclusion criteria: none reported |
|
Interventions |
Intervention
Comparison
|
|
Outcomes |
Mortality
Coverage of appropriate treatment by an appropriate provider
Coverage of careseeking to an 'appropriate provider' of treatment services
|
|
Notes |
Objective: to evaluate the effects of iCCM on care seeking behaviour and treatment, 2 years after it has been introduced. Implementation date: July 2010 to December 2012. Location: 3 districts (Masaka, Mpigi and Wakiso) which in 2011 were divided into 8 districts by the government of Uganda (Wakiso, Mpigi, Butambala, Gomba, Masaka, Lwengo, Bukomansimbi and Kalungu). The majority of participants (≥ 67%) lived in rural areas. Funding source: Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada through a grant administered by UNICEF. |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Controlled before‐after study, with no random sequence generation. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Controlled before‐after study, with no allocation concealment. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding of participants and personnel. Lay health workers would have known if they received additional training and this may have biased their performance. Allocation was by village and parents may have known that the health workers at their primary health centre had received additional training and this may have biased their care seeking behaviour or responses to questionnaires, or both. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Blinding of outcome assessors not described in paper. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The number of participating households was increased (from 2080 to 8000) between baseline and endline assessment. The response rate in both assessments were high: 99% (2076/2080) of eligible households participated at baseline and 97% (7734/8000) of eligible households participated at endline. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | The outcomes listed in the objective of the paper were presented in the tables. However, grey literature indicates under‐5 mortality was an original objective and that this was collected. The paper substantiated this by indicating a birth history was collected; however, the outcomes on mortality were not reported. |
Baseline outcomes similar | High risk | There were some differences in baseline outcomes.
|
Baseline characteristics similar | High risk | There were some differences in baseline characteristics.
|
Contamination | Low risk | Low risk of contamination due to districts being the unit of analysis and size of districts. VHTs in control areas were not trained on iCCM or provided with commodities for treatment. |
Other bias | High risk | 6/11 authors had UNICEF affiliations and UNICEF advocates iCCM. The endline survey in the control areas occurred in the dry season whereas the baseline survey for control areas and both the baseline survey and endline survey for the intervention areas were in the rainy season. Ebola may have affected implementation of iCCM, particularly for fever, in the intervention areas. |