↓ Skip to main content

Effects of a liquefied petroleum gas stove intervention on pollutant exposure and adult cardiopulmonary outcomes (CHAP): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of a liquefied petroleum gas stove intervention on pollutant exposure and adult cardiopulmonary outcomes (CHAP): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2179-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio, Dina Goodman, Josiah L. Kephart, Catherine H. Miele, Kendra N. Williams, Mitra Moazzami, Elizabeth C. Fung, Kirsten Koehler, Victor G. Davila-Roman, Kathryn A. Lee, Saachi Nangia, Steven A. Harvey, Kyle Steenland, Gustavo F. Gonzales, William Checkley

Abstract

Biomass fuel smoke is a leading risk factor for the burden of disease worldwide. International campaigns are promoting the widespread adoption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in resource-limited settings. However, it is unclear if the introduction and use of LPG stoves, in settings where biomass fuels are used daily, reduces pollution concentration exposure, improves health outcomes, or how cultural and social barriers influence the exclusive adoption of LPG stoves. We will conduct a randomized controlled, field intervention trial of LPG stoves and fuel distribution in rural Puno, Peru, in which we will enroll 180 female participants aged 25-64 years and follow them for 2 years. After enrollment, we will collect information on sociodemographic characteristics, household characteristics, and cooking practices. During the first year of the study, LPG stoves and fuel tanks will be delivered to the homes of 90 intervention participants. During the second year, participants in the intervention arm will keep their LPG stoves, but the gas supply will stop. Control participants will receive LPG stoves and vouchers to obtain free fuel from distributors at the beginning of the second year, but gas will not be delivered. Starting at baseline, we will collect longitudinal measurements of respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function, blood pressure, endothelial function, carotid artery intima-media thickness, 24-h dietary recalls, exhaled carbon monoxide, quality-of-life indicators, and stove-use behaviors. Environmental exposure assessments will occur six times over the 2-year follow-up period, consisting of 48-h personal exposure and kitchen concentration measurements of fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide, and 48-h kitchen concentrations of nitrogen dioxide for a subset of 100 participants. Findings from this study will allow us to better understand behavioral patterns, environmental exposures, and cardiovascular and pulmonary outcomes resulting from the adoption of LPG stoves. If this trial indicates that LPG stoves are a feasible and effective way to reduce household air pollution and improve health, it will provide important information to support widespread adoption of LPG fuel as a strategy to reduce the global burden of disease. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02994680 , Cardiopulmonary Outcomes and Household Air Pollution (CHAP) Trial. Registered on 28 November 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 40 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Engineering 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 5%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 50 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
#2,111,549
of 21,200,930 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#721
of 5,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,702
of 398,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,200,930 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,402 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them