Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17470267›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2007

Promoting childbirth companions in South Africa: a randomised pilot study.

Heather Brown, G Justus Hofmeyr, V Cheryl Nikodem, Helen Smith, Paul Garner

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06085105 (Caring for Providers to Improve Patient Experience), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06085105 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Caring for Providers to Improve Patient Experience (CPIPE) Study: A Cluster Randomized-controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of the CPIPE Intervention on Person-centered Maternity Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2024 to 2026Enrolled6,379ConditionsStress, Psychological, Maternal Health, Healthcare Provider, Adverse OutcomesArmsCPIPE Training, Peer support groups, Mentorship, Leadership engagement, Embedded champions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Continuous support for women during childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Continuous support for women during childbirth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Content and design of respectful maternity care training packages for health workers in sub-Saharan Africa: Scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Heather BrownWorthing Hospital, Lyndhurst Road, Worthing, W Sussex, UK. heather.brown@wash.nhs.uk
G Justus Hofmeyr
V Cheryl Nikodem
Helen Smith
Paul Garner
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of the Western Cape · ZAUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAWorthing Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost women delivering in South African State Maternity Hospitals do not have a childbirth companion; in addition, the quality of care could be better, and at times women are treated inhumanely. We piloted a multi-faceted intervention to encourage uptake of childbirth companions in state hospitals, and hypothesised that lay carers would improve the behaviour of health professionals.

methodsWe conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention to promote childbirth companions in hospital deliveries. We promoted evidence-based information for maternity staff at 10 hospitals through access to the World Health Organization Reproductive Health Library (RHL), computer hardware and training to all ten hospitals. We surveyed 200 women at each site, measuring companionship, and indicators of good obstetric practice and humanity of care. Five hospitals were then randomly allocated to receive an educational intervention to promote childbirth companions, and we surveyed all hospitals again at eight months through a repeat survey of postnatal women. Changes in median values between intervention and control hospitals were examined.

resultsAt baseline, the majority of hospitals did not allow a companion, or access to food or fluids. A third of women were given an episiotomy. Some women were shouted at (17.7%, N = 2085), and a few reported being slapped or struck (4.3%, N = 2080). Despite an initial positive response from staff to the childbirth companion intervention, we detected no difference between intervention and control hospitals in relation to whether a companion was allowed by nursing staff, good obstetric practice or humanity of care.

conclusionThe quality and humanity of care in these state hospitals needs to improve. Introducing childbirth companions was more difficult than we anticipated, particularly in under-resourced health care systems with frequent staff changes. We were unable to determine whether the presence of a lay carer impacted on the humanity of care provided by health professionals.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN33728802.

Indexed as

FriendsOrganizational PolicyVolunteersAdultEnemaEpisiotomyFemaleFood DeprivationGuideline AdherenceHealth PromotionHospitals, MaternityHospitals, PublicHumansObstetricsObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID17470267
PMCPMC1905915
OpenAlexW2119019424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.