Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23390509›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2013

Effects of community participation on improving uptake of skilled care for maternal and newborn health: a systematic review.

Cicely Marston, Alicia Renedo, C R McGowan, Anayda Portela

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Cicely MarstonDepartment of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. Cicely.Marston@lshtm.ac.uk
Alicia Renedo
C R McGowan
Anayda Portela
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a broad consensus that communities should be actively involved in improving their own health, evidence for the effect of community participation on specific health outcomes is limited. We examine the effectiveness of community participation interventions in maternal and newborn health, asking: did participation improve outcomes? We also look at how the impact of community participation has been assessed, particularly through randomised controlled trials, and make recommendations for future research. We highlight the importance of qualitative investigation, suggesting key areas for qualitative data reporting alongside quantitative work. METHODS AND

findingsSystematic review of published and 'grey' literature from 1990. We searched 11 databases, and followed up secondary references. Main outcome measures were the use of skilled care before/during/after birth and maternal/newborn mortality/morbidity. We included qualitative and quantitative studies from any country, and used a community participation theoretical framework to analyse the data. We found 10 interventions. Community participation had largely positive impacts on maternal/newborn health as part of a package of interventions, although not necessarily on uptake of skilled care. Interventions improving mortality or use of skilled care raised awareness, encouraged dialogue and involved communities in designing solutions-but so did those showing no effect. DISCUSSION: There are few high-quality, quantitative studies. We also lack information about why participation interventions do/do not succeed - an area of obvious interest for programme designers. Qualitative investigation can help fill this information gap and should be at the heart of future quantitative research examining participation interventions - in maternal/newborn health, and more widely. This review illustrates the need for qualitative investigation alongside RCTs and other quantitative studies to understand complex interventions in context, describe predicted and unforeseen impacts, assess potential for generalisability, and capture the less easily measurable social/political effects of encouraging participation.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, BibliographicFemaleHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInfant, NewbornInfant WelfareMaternal WelfareOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID23390509
PMCPMC3563661
OpenAlexW2090258875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.