↓ Skip to main content

Fostering emotional, social, physical and educational wellbeing in rural India: the methods of a multi-arm randomized controlled trial of Girls First

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Fostering emotional, social, physical and educational wellbeing in rural India: the methods of a multi-arm randomized controlled trial of Girls First
Published in
Trials, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1008-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine Sachs Leventhal, Lisa M. DeMaria, Jane Gillham, Gracy Andrew, John W Peabody, Steve Leventhal

Abstract

There are 600 million girls in low and middle income countries (LMICs), many of whom are at great risk for poor health and education. There is thus great need for programs that can effectively improve wellbeing for these girls. Although many interventions have been developed to address these issues, most focus on health and education without integrating attention to social and emotional factors. This omission is unfortunate, as nascent evidence indicates that these factors are closely related to health and education. This paper describes the methods of a 4-arm randomized controlled trial among 3,560 adolescent girls in rural Bihar, India that tested whether adding an intervention targeting social-emotional issues (based on a "resilience framework") to an adolescent health intervention would improve emotional, social, physical, and educational wellbeing to a greater extent than its components and a control group. Study arms were: (1) Girls First, a combination of the Girls First Resilience Curriculum (RC) and the Girls First Health Curriculum (HC); (2) Girls First Resilience Curriculum (RC) alone; (3) Girls First Health Curriculum (HC) alone; and (4) a school-as-usual control group (SC). Seventy-six schools were randomized (19 per condition) and 74 local women with a tenth grade education were trained and monitored to facilitate the program. Quantitative data were collected from 3,560 girls over 4 assessment points with very low rates of participant attrition. Qualitative assessments were conducted with a subset of 99 girls and 27 facilitators. In this article, we discuss guiding principles that facilitated trial implementation, including integrating diverse local and non-local sources of knowledge, focusing on flexibility of planning and implementation, prioritizing systematic measurement selection, and striking a balance between scientific rigor and real-world feasibility. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02429661 . Registered 24 April 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 11%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Sports and Recreations 9 8%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 36 32%

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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#5,419,421
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,065
of 4,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,541
of 290,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#210
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 290,978 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.