IntroductionFew studies have assessed the nature and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).Methods and FindingsThe aims of this systematic review are to evaluate the characteristics (including the risk of bias assessment) of RCT conducted in LAC according to funding source. A review of RCTs published in 2010 in which the author's affiliation was from LAC was performed in PubMed and LILACS. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were risk of bias assessment and funding source. A total of 1,695 references were found in PubMed and LILACS databases, of which 526 were RCTs (N = 73.513 participants). English was the dominant publication language (93%) and most of the RCTs were published in non-LAC journals (84.2%). Only five of the 19 identified countries accounted for nearly 95% of all RCTs conducted in the region (Brazil 70.9%, Mexico 10.1%, Argentina 5.9%, Colombia 3.8%, and Chile 3.4%). Few RCTs covered priority areas related with Millennium Development Goals like maternal health (6.7%) or high priority infectious diseases (3.8%). Regarding children, 3.6% and 0.4% RCT evaluated nutrition and diarrhea interventions respectively but none pneumonia. As a comparison, aesthetic and sport related interventions account for 4.6% of all trials. A random sample of RCTs (n = 358) was assessed for funding source: exclusively public (33.8%); private (e.g. pharmaceutical company) (15.3%); other (e.g. mixed, NGO) (15.1%); no funding (35.8%). Overall assessments for risk of bias showed no statistically significant differences between RCTs and type of funding source. Statistically significant differences favoring private and others type of funding was found when assessing trial registration and conflict of interest reporting.ConclusionFindings of this study could be used to provide more direction for future research to facilitate innovation, improve health outcomes or address priority health problems.
Diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth infection and malnutrition are leading causes of child mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To reduce the prevalence of these diseases, effective interventions for adequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) should be implemented. This paper describes the design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial that will compare the efficacy of four school-based WaSH interventions for improving children’s health literacy, handwashing, and nutrition. Interventions consisted of (1) WaSH policy reinforcement; (2) low-, medium-, or high-volume health education; (3) hygiene supplies; and (4) WaSH facilities (e.g., toilets, urinals, handwashing basins) improvements. We randomly allocated school clusters from the intervention arm to one of four groups to compare with schools from the control arm. Primary outcomes were: children’s health literacy, physical growth, nutrition status, and handwashing prevalence. Secondary outcomes were: children’s self-reported health status and history of extreme hunger, satisfaction with WaSH facilities, and school restrooms’ WaSH adequacy. We will measure differences in pre- and post-intervention outcomes and compare these differences between control and intervention arms. This research protocol can be a blueprint for future school-based WaSH intervention studies to be conducted in LMICs. Study protocols were approved by the ethics committees of the University of Bonn, Germany, and the University of the Philippines Manila. This trial was retroactively registered, ID number: DRKS00021623.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.