ArticleWellcome open research2024
"Kuteteza": A community-engaged COVID-19 Prevention and Protection Initiative in Southern Malawi.
Article in Wellcome open research, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 epidemic in Malawi involved almost 90,000 recorded cases and 2,638 deaths. In response to early concerns about vulnerable older people in rural areas, we developed 'Kuteteza': a COVID-19 mitigation response project. Clinicians, public health professionals, and researchers collaborated with government and district-level staff in two Southern Malawi districts. Interventions included supported 'shielding' of older people - minimising social mixing whilst having their daily needs supported. Additional mitigation strategies included provision of masks, handwashing stations, and soap. Government partnerships allowed additional support for vulnerable groups. We present the findings of a realist project evaluation, assessing the feasibility of this approach. Methods: We collated anonymised descriptive data on Kuteteza procedures and conducted qualitative structured observations in villages involved in the initiative. We carried out three focus groups involving community members, frontline health staff, and volunteers in each setting. These provided deeper insights into experiences of the pandemic and impacts of the intervention, including suggested opportunities during future outbreaks. Results: The project involved 25 villages across two districts, with 1,087 people over the age of 60 voluntarily participating in 'shielding'. Supplies of food, water, and cooking fuel were mostly arranged within the family. In Kuteteza villages, the handwashing stations and soap were widely used, and there was awareness and some observance of COVID-19 prevention measures. The project, including the provision of supplies, was greatly appreciated by communities, but wider contextual constraints - namely widespread economic insecurity - presented persisting challenges. Suggestions for improvement largely concerned project enhancements and extensions. Conclusions: Through effective stakeholder engagement and contribution to national response strategy, the Kuteteza project helped raise COVID-19 awareness and supported populations at a critical time in the pandemic. Kuteteza approaches were welcomed locally and may be incorporated in future epidemic responses. Supported 'shielding' should be paired with government-led measures to mitigate economic hardship.
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.