Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24852300›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2014

Facilitators and barriers to quality of care in maternal, newborn and child health: a global situational analysis through metareview.

Manisha Nair, Sachiyo Yoshida, Thierry Lambrechts, Cynthia Boschi-Pinto, Krishna Bose, Elizabeth Mary Mason, Matthews Mathai

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Responsive versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cultural brokering in pregnancy care: A critical review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Review

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Manisha NairNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Sachiyo YoshidaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Thierry LambrechtsDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cynthia Boschi-PintoDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Krishna BoseDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Elizabeth Mary MasonDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Matthews MathaiDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveConduct a global situational analysis to identify the current facilitators and barriers to improving quality of care (QoC) for pregnant women, newborns and children. STUDY

designMetareview of published and unpublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted between January 2000 and March 2013 in any language. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. SETTINGS: Health systems of all countries. Study outcome: QoC measured using surrogate indicators--effective, efficient, accessible, acceptable/patient centred, equitable and safe. ANALYSIS: Conducted in two phases (1) qualitative synthesis of extracted data to identify and group the facilitators and barriers to improving QoC, for each of the three population groups, into the six domains of WHO's framework and explore new domains and (2) an analysis grid to map the common facilitators and barriers.

resultsWe included 98 systematic reviews with 110 interventions to improve QoC from countries globally. The facilitators and barriers identified fitted the six domains of WHO's framework--information, patient-population engagement, leadership, regulations and standards, organisational capacity and models of care. Two new domains, 'communication' and 'satisfaction', were generated. Facilitators included active and regular interpersonal communication between users and providers; respect, confidentiality, comfort and support during care provision; engaging users in decision-making; continuity of care and effective audit and feedback mechanisms. Key barriers identified were language barriers in information and communication; power difference between users and providers; health systems not accounting for user satisfaction; variable standards of implementation of standard guidelines; shortage of resources in health facilities and lack of studies assessing the role of leadership in improving QoC. These were common across the three population groups.

conclusionsThe barriers to good-quality healthcare are common for pregnant women, newborns and children; thus, interventions targeted to address them will have uniform beneficial effects. Adopting the identified facilitators would help countries strengthen their health systems and ensure high-quality care for all.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementQuality of Health CareFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInternationalityMaternal-Child Health ServicesPregnancyPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID24852300
PMCPMC4039842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.