Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25595142›Full record

ArticleHealth policy and planning2015

Effect of a maternal and child health handbook on maternal knowledge and behaviour: a community-based controlled trial in rural Cambodia.

Satoko Yanagisawa, Ayako Soyano, Hisato Igarashi, Midori Ura, Yasuhide Nakamura

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health policy and planning, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Are Parent-Held Child Health Records a Valuable Health Intervention? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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 1 country.

Satoko YanagisawaSchool of Nursing and Health, Aichi Prefectural University, Togoku, Kamishidami, Moriyama-ku, Nagoya, Aichi, 463-8502, Japan, sayanagi@nrs.aichi-pu.ac.jp.
Ayako SoyanoSchool of Nursing, Saku University, 2384 Iwamurada, Saku, Nagano, 385-0022, Japan.
Hisato IgarashiSchool of Health Sciences, Shinshu University, 3-1-1 Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan.
Midori UraDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Shinshu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan, and.
Yasuhide NakamuraGraduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Aichi Prefectural University · JPOsaka University of Human Sciences · JPSaku University · JPShinshu University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maternal and child health (MCH) handbooks are comprehensive home-based booklets designed to integrate MCH records. Although empirical evidence suggests the handbooks are more effective than current card-type records, this has not been scientifically demonstrated. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of the MCH handbook on maternal knowledge and behaviour as measured by antenatal care (ANC) attendance, delivery with skilled birth attendants (SBAs) and delivery at a health facility. The Cambodian version of the MCH handbook was developed and introduced in two health centres, and two other health centres served as controls. Pre-intervention and post-intervention surveys were conducted with 320 women from the intervention areas and 320 women from the control areas who had given birth within 1 year before the survey. We evaluated the impact of the handbook by using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis and calculated adjusted odds ratios for pre-post changes in key indicators by using logistic regression. In addition, we interviewed multiparous women, health staff and health volunteers to assess the acceptance and cultural appropriateness of the handbook. Content analysis was performed with the English-translated transcriptions. The DID analyses revealed that all key indicators increased in the intervention group against counterfactual assumptions. The intervention also increased maternal knowledge of all topics addressed except for the risk of severe bleeding after delivery; this may be attributable to the influence of cultural belief. Logistic regression showed that the intervention increased ANC attendance, delivery with SBAs and delivery at a health facility, even after adjusting for maternal age, education and economic conditions. The qualitative data indicated that the handbook was well received and culturally appropriate. Thus, the MCH handbook is a reasonable and superior alternative to current card-type maternal records.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeTeaching MaterialsAdolescentAdultCambodiaChild HealthFemaleHealth EducationHumansMaleMaternal HealthMaternal Health ServicesMiddle AgedPregnancyPrenatal CareAntenatal caredifference-in-differences analysishome-based recordmaternal and child health (MCH) handbookmaternal outcomeskilled birth attendant

Identifiers

PMID25595142
PMCPMC4597043
OpenAlexW2143545571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.