ArticlePloS one2025
A qualitative process evaluation of a nasal spray intervention to prevent respiratory tract infections.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasal sprays could be used to prevent and manage respiratory tract infections (RTIs). As part of a randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN17936080), participants received one of two nasal sprays (gel-based vs. saline) and a digital intervention. The digital intervention used behaviour change theories to encourage nasal spray use to reduce the severity and occurrences of RTIs. We explored participants' experiences of the digital intervention and nasal spray. We interviewed 31 participants (aged 19-80), sampled from the two nasal spray intervention trial arms across 3 winter seasons (including at the height of COVID-19). We analysed the interviews using thematic analysis and found two themes regarding facilitators and barriers to nasal spray use. The facilitators of nasal spray use revolved around belief in nasal spray efficacy for infection, belief the nasal spray is safe, motivation to avoid infection, sense of control over infection, and how the nasal spray is integrated into lifestyle. Barriers to nasal spray use included the belief the nasal spray is ineffective, belief the nasal spray is unnecessary, and usage difficulties. Overall, the results highlight the role of beliefs, lifestyle integration, and usage difficulties in nasal spray adherence, with implications for future digital interventions, such as addressing concerns about the nasal spray being perceived as medication.
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.