↓ Skip to main content

Pragmatism in practice: lessons learned during screening and enrollment for a randomised controlled trial in rural northern Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Pragmatism in practice: lessons learned during screening and enrollment for a randomised controlled trial in rural northern Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0486-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meseret Molla, Henok Negussie, Moses Ngari, Esther Kivaya, Patricia Njuguna, Fikre Enqueselassie, James A. Berkley, Gail Davey

Abstract

We use the example of the Gojjam Lymphoedema Best Practice Trial (GoLBeT), a pragmatic trial in a remote rural setting in northern Ethiopia, to extract lessons relevant to other investigators balancing the demands of practicality and community acceptability with internal and external validity in clinical trials. We explain in detail the preparation for the trial, its setting in northern Ethiopia, the identification and selection of patients (inclusion and exclusion criterion, identifying and screening of patients at home, enrollment of patients at the health centres and health posts), and randomisation. We describe the challenges met, together with strategies employed to overcome them. Examples given in the previous section are contextualised and general principles extracted where possible. We conclude that it is possible to conduct a trial that balances approaches that support internal validity (e.g. careful design of proformas, accurate case identification, control over data quality and high retention rates) with those that favour generalisability (e.g. 'real world' setting and low rates of exclusion). Strategies, such as Rapid Ethical Assessment, that increase researchers' understanding of the study setting and inclusion of hard-to-reach participants are likely to have resource and time implications, but are vital in achieving an appropriate balance. ISRCTN67805210, registered 24/01/2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 25 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,932,551
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,027
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,898
of 332,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 332,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.