scholarly journals Using a Community Partnered Participatory Research Approach to Implement a Randomized Controlled Trial: Planning Community Partners in Care

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 780-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bowen Chung ◽  
Loretta Jones ◽  
Elizabeth L. Dixon ◽  
Jeanne Miranda ◽  
Kenneth Wells ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Community Partners ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Participatory Research Approach

scholarly journals A Randomized Controlled Trial of Students for Nutrition and eXercise: A Community-Based Participatory Research Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Bogart ◽  
Burton O. Cowgill ◽  
Marc N. Elliott ◽  
David J. Klein ◽  
Jennifer Hawes-Dawson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Women’s Experiences in a Community-Based Participatory Research Randomized Controlled Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 847-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn M. Kneipp ◽  
Barbara J. Lutz ◽  
Catherine Levonian ◽  
Christa Cook ◽  
Jill B. Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Women’S Experiences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Women's Experiences

scholarly journals THE ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF ADAPTATION OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL APPROACH IN THE FIELD OF IMPACT EVALUATION FOR HUMANITARIAN PROJECTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sada Hussain Shah ◽  
Aijaz Ali Wassan ◽  
Abdul Hadi
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Impact Evaluation ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Methods Of Social Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Conducting and communicating research is a responsible intellectual job. A researcher would go analysing immense literature and would search for valid evidence. Prior to narrating an authentic statement. Correspondingly while selecting a method for study it is vital to opt for an approach that is ethically suitable in a defined context. While applied on a set of a populace, generally denoted to as a sample and/or universe. Therefore, social research would be a more laborious task. Hence, the social context is ever-changing in terms of time and space. Diverse methods of social research are being invented yearly. To compete with consistently changing social phenomena and needs of evidence. Operational research, evaluation, and screen monitoring are the most prominent approaches of modern social research. Hence, these naïve approaches of social research would undergo learning and adaptation. Community development projects and retrospective studies thereof are also being synthesized, with existing methods of social research. An identical practice is an adaptation of the Randomized Controlled Trial hereinafter (RCT) approach to conduct impact evaluations of humanitarian and development projects. Hitherto, RCT was being widely used by health researchers as a clinical research approach. Hence, an adaptation of this clinical research approach for field studies, particularly for the evaluation of humanitarian projects. Those are being implemented to provide survival support to vulnerable communities. It would require this approach to undergo some ethical adaptations. This research paper is developed to commence a wider literary discourse on requisite ethical adaptations for RCT to use in the evaluation of humanitarian projects. This research paper brings the findings from desk and field. To discuss key questions; where and how we can use RCT, and what ethical adaptations are necessary not to be forgone? This discourse is established on the usefulness of RCT, ethics of social research, ethics of evaluation, and humanitarian principles. The overarching purpose of this research paper is to facilitate the adaptation of RCT in the field of impact evaluation. While considering the ethical principles of the development sector and evaluation. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0790/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>

scholarly journals COESA - Sustainable, healthy cities: Protocol of a mixed methods evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial for Aedes control in Brazil using a community mobilization approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Zinszer ◽  
Andrea Caprara ◽  
Antonio Lima ◽  
Stéphanie Degroote ◽  
Monica Zahreddine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Mobilization ◽  
Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Dengue Control

Abstract Background: Dengue is increasing in its global presence with an estimated 4 billion people at-risk of infection in at least 128 countries. Despite the promising results of EcoHealth and community mobilization approaches to Aedes reduction, more evidence of their efficacy on reducing dengue risk is needed. The principal research question is to determine if interventions based upon community mobilization reduce the risk of dengue virus infection among children 3 to 9 years old compared to usual dengue control practice in Fortaleza, Brazil. Methods: The present study will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) design with randomization at the census tract level with equal allocation to the two arms. In each arm, there will be 34 clusters of 86 children between 3 to 9 years old for an expected total of 5,848 children enrolled in the study, assuming a risk reduction of 29.5% based upon findings from a previous multi-site cRCT. The primary outcomes are rates of anti-dengue Immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion and adult female Aedes density. The intervention is based upon a participatory health research approach, Socializing Evidence for Participatory Action (SEPA), where the research evidence is used to foster community engagement and ownership of the health issue and solution. Following allocation, intervention communities will develop and implement their own solutions that will likely include a wide variety of collective events and media approaches. Data collection activities over a period of three years include household visits for blood collection, household surveys, and entomological surveys; and qualitative activities including focus groups, indepth interviews, and document analysis to evaluate the process, acceptability, fidelity, and sustainability of the intervention. Study participants will be aware of their assignment and all research staff will be blinded although the intervention assignment will likely be revealed to field staff through interaction with participants. Discussion: The results of our study will provide evidence on community mobilization as an intervention for dengue control. We anticipate that if community mobilization is effective in Fortaleza, the results of this study will help develop evidence-based vector control programs in Brazil, and also in other countries struggling with Aedes-transmitted diseases.

scholarly journals Engaging Latina cancer survivors, their caregivers, and community partners in a randomized controlled trial: Nueva Vida intervention

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 1107-1118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Rush ◽  
Margaret Darling ◽  
Maria Gloria Elliott ◽  
Ivis Febus-Sampayo ◽  
Charlene Kuo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Partners ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals COESA - Sustainable, healthy cities: Protocol of a mixed methods evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial for Aedes control in Brazil using a community mobilization approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Zinszer ◽  
Andrea Caprara ◽  
Antonio Lima ◽  
Stéphanie Degroote ◽  
Monica Zahreddine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Mobilization ◽  
Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Dengue Control

Abstract Background: Dengue is increasing in its global presence with an estimated 4 billion people at-risk of infection in at least 128 countries. Despite the promising results of EcoHealth and community mobilization approaches to Aedes reduction, more evidence of their efficacy on reducing dengue risk is needed. The principal research question is to determine if interventions based upon community mobilization reduce the risk of dengue virus infection among children 3 to 9 years old compared to usual dengue control practice in Fortaleza, Brazil. Methods: The present study will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) design with randomization at the census tract level with equal allocation to the two arms. In each arm, there will be 34 clusters of 86 children between 3 to 9 years old for an expected total of 5,848 children enrolled in the study, assuming a risk reduction of 29.5% based upon findings from a previous multi-site cRCT. The primary outcomes are rates of anti-dengue Immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion and adult female Aedes density. The intervention is based upon a participatory health research approach, Socializing Evidence for Participatory Action (SEPA), where the research evidence is used to foster community engagement and ownership of the health issue and solution. Following allocation, intervention communities will develop and implement their own solutions that will likely include a wide variety of collective events and media approaches. Data collection activities over a period of three years include household visits for blood collection, household surveys, and entomological surveys; and qualitative activities including focus groups, indepth interviews, and document analysis to evaluate the process, acceptability, fidelity, and sustainability of the intervention. Study participants will be aware of their assignment and all research staff will be blinded although the intervention assignment will likely be revealed to field staff through interaction with participants. Discussion: The results of our study will provide evidence on community mobilization as an intervention for dengue control. We anticipate that if community mobilization is effective in Fortaleza, the results of this study will help develop evidence-based vector control programs in Brazil, and also in other countries struggling with Aedes-transmitted diseases.

scholarly journals COESA - Sustainable, healthy cities: Protocol of a mixed methods evaluation of a cluster randomized controlled trial for Aedes control in Brazil using a community mobilization approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Zinszer ◽  
Andrea Caprara ◽  
Antonio Lima ◽  
Stéphanie Degroote ◽  
Monica Zahreddine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Mobilization ◽  
Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Blood Collection ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Dengue Control

Abstract Background: Dengue is increasing in its global presence with an estimated 4 billion people at-risk of infection in at least 128 countries. Despite the promising results of EcoHealth and community mobilization approaches to Aedes reduction, more evidence of their efficacy on reducing dengue risk is needed. The principal research question is to determine if interventions based upon community mobilization reduce the risk of dengue virus infection among children 3 to 9 years old compared to usual dengue control practice in Fortaleza, Brazil. Methods: The present study will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) design with randomization at the census tract level with equal allocation to the two arms. In each arm, there will be 34 clusters of 86 children between 3 to 9 years old for an expected total of 5,848 children enrolled in the study, assuming a risk reduction of 29.5% based upon findings from a previous multi-site cRCT. The primary outcomes are rates of anti-dengue Immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion and adult female Aedes density. The intervention is based upon a participatory health research approach, Socializing Evidence for Participatory Action (SEPA), where the research evidence is used to foster community engagement and ownership of the health issue and solution. Following allocation, intervention communities will develop and implement their own solutions that will likely include a wide variety of collective events and media approaches. Data collection activities over a period of three years include household visits for blood collection, household surveys, and entomological surveys; and qualitative activities including focus groups, indepth interviews, and document analysis to evaluate the process, acceptability, fidelity, and sustainability of the intervention. Study participants will be aware of their assignment and all research staff will be blinded although the intervention assignment will likely be revealed to field staff through interaction with participants. Discussion: The results of our study will provide evidence on community mobilization as an intervention for dengue control. We anticipate that if community mobilization is effective in Fortaleza, the results of this study will help develop evidence-based vector control programs in Brazil, and also in other countries struggling with Aedes-transmitted diseases.

Treatment Fidelity Procedures for an Aphasia Intervention Within a Randomized Controlled Trial: Design, Feasibility, and Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1S) ◽  
pp. 412-424
Author(s):  
Elissa L. Conlon ◽  
Emily J. Braun ◽  
Edna M. Babbitt ◽  
Leora R. Cherney
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Treatment Fidelity ◽  
Protocol Adherence ◽  
Study Condition ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Aphasia Therapy ◽  
Percent Accuracy ◽  
Over Time

Purpose This study reports on the treatment fidelity procedures implemented during a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing intensive and distributed comprehensive aphasia therapy. Specifically, the results of 1 treatment, verb network strengthening treatment (VNeST), are examined. Method Eight participants were recruited for each of 7 consecutive cohorts for a total of 56 participants. Participants completed 60 hr of aphasia therapy, including 15 hr of VNeST. Two experienced speech-language pathologists delivered the treatment. To promote treatment fidelity, the study team developed a detailed manual of procedures and fidelity checklists, completed role plays to standardize treatment administration, and video-recorded all treatment sessions for review. To assess protocol adherence during treatment delivery, trained research assistants not involved in the treatment reviewed video recordings of a subset of randomly selected VNeST treatment sessions and completed the fidelity checklists. This process was completed for 32 participants representing 2 early cohorts and 2 later cohorts, which allowed for measurement of protocol adherence over time. Percent accuracy of protocol adherence was calculated across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition (intensive vs. distributed therapy). Results The fidelity procedures were sufficient to promote and verify a high level of adherence to the treatment protocol across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition. Conclusion Treatment fidelity strategies and monitoring are feasible when incorporated into the study design. Treatment fidelity monitoring should be completed at regular intervals during the course of a study to ensure that high levels of protocol adherence are maintained over time and across conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document