Logistic regression used to control the differences in the socio‐economic factorsĪ prospective randomised controlled trial with a parallel group conducted in July 2008 to September 2009 6‐month follow‐up interview using the same questionnaire for the intervention and control groups No applicable, however, no information on non‐response or those who declined to participate The interviews were conducted with LHWs, households that they serve, as well as supervisors and key staff at the health facilities to which the LHWs are attached.
No evidence of blinding and unlikely given nature of the intervention Attempted matching between control and intervention groups, however, it was a non‐random sample selection for the control group. Two LHWs were randomly selected and a sample of 8 households was drawn from each of the selected LHWs. Also the proportion of those who were able to make decisions was higher in the intervention group. Women in the intervention group seemed to be better off than those in the control group socio‐economic indicators for the control and intervention groups showed that 27% of those in intervention group were literate whereas only 14% of the control group were. Use of reversible modern contraceptive methods: oral contraceptive pills, injectables, condom and IUD Women with no children were excluded due to lack of data on whether or not they wanted children (N = 4277, 931 in non‐intervention control group and 3346 in the intervention group) women using sterilisations are excludedĬommunity‐based family planning programme using outreach workers (Lady Health Workers ‐ LHWs) to provide a doorstep family planning service which included motivating women to practice family planning, providing oral contraceptive pills and condoms, and referring for injectables, IUD and sterilisation Women of reproductive age living in rural Pakistan. The power calculation was based on haemorrhoids, to detect decrease in this morbidity from 15% in nonexposed group to 7% in the exposed groupĬontrolled before and after study evaluation conducted 6 years after the programme began only those with a minimum of 4 years of intervention were eligible for inclusion in the sample Of 903 women recruited, 876 completed the study 3% losses were due to refusals (N = 9) and bad addresses (N = 18), most of whom were from Group AĪnalysis and reporting was comprehensive all outcomes measured were reported Although they could tell from the interviews, they were not fully aware of the study objectives.
Participants were blinded, however, the midwives who carried out the home visits were not blindedīlinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) "the random allocation relied on numbered opaque and sealed envelopes."īlinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) "Randomising was in blocks of 7 where a caseload of 21 eligible deliveries per day was assumed." Random sequence generation (selection bias) Maternal postpartum morbidities postnatal care uptake contraceptive uptake and type infant immunisation, feeding and morbidities Group C: no visits (297 of 301 eligible, 4 refused)
Group B: 1 visit on day 3 (294 women of 301 eligible, 3 excluded for bad address and 4 refused) Group A: 4 visits on days 1, 3, 7 and 30 following delivery (285 women of 301 eligible, 15 excluded for bad address and 1 refused) Home visits by midwives to examine, follow up, educate, support and counsel women who had recently given birth Women who recently gave birth at the maternity teaching hospital in Damascus, Syria, and who were available for follow‐up over 6 months women who delivered prematurely or had babies with low birth weight (< 2500 g) were excluded Randomised controlled trial with 3 study arms outcomes assessed at 4 months postpartum
0 kommentar(er)
