Trial reportPloS one2024
A qualitative analysis of post-hoc interviews with multilevel participants of a randomized controlled trial of a community-based intervention.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCommunity-based health interventions often demonstrate efficacy in clinical trial settings but fail to be implemented in the real-world. We sought to identify the key operational and contextual elements of the Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study (LABBPS), an objectively successful community-based health intervention primed for real-world implementation. LABBPS was a cluster randomized control trial that paired the barbers of Black-owned barbershops with clinical pharmacists to manage uncontrolled hypertension in Black male patrons, demonstrating a substantial 21.6 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure. Despite this success, the LABBPS intervention has not expanded beyond the original clinical trial setting. The aim of this study was to determine the facilitating and limiting factors to expansion of the LABBPS intervention.
methodsWe undertook a qualitative assessment of semi-structured interviews with study participants performed after trial completion. Interviews included a total of 31 participants including 20 (6%) of the 319 LABBPS program participants ("patrons"), 10 (19%) barbers, and one (50%) clinical pharmacist. The semi-structured interviews were focused on perceptions of the medical system, study intervention, and influence of social factors on health.
resultsSeveral common themes emerged from thematic analysis of interview responses including: importance of care provided in a convenient and safe environment, individual responsibility for health and health-related behaviors, and engagement of trusted community members. In particular, patrons reported that receiving the intervention from their barber in a familiar environment positively influenced the formation of relationships with clinical pharmacists around shared efforts to improve medication adherence and healthy habits. All interviewee groups identified the trust diad, comprising the familiar environment and respected community member, as instrumental in increasing health-related behaviors to a degree not usually achieved by traditional healthcare providers. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, participants of an objectively successful community-based intervention trial consistently identified key features that could facilitate wider implementation and efficacy: social trust relationships, soliciting insights of trust bearers, and consistent engagement in a familiar community setting. These findings can help to inform the design and operations of future community-based studies and programs aiming to achieve a broad and sustainable impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.