Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26275999›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

How do Malawian women rate the quality of maternal and newborn care? Experiences and perceptions of women in the central and southern regions.

Christabel Kambala, Julia Lohmann, Jacob Mazalale, Stephan Brenner, Manuela De Allegri, Adamson S Muula, Malabika Sarker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Implementation of the INTERGROWTH-21Global health action · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Christabel KambalaInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, INF 324, Heidelberg, Germany. christabel_kambala@yahoo.com.
Julia LohmannInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, INF 324, Heidelberg, Germany. julia.lohmann@uni-heidelberg.de.
Jacob MazalaleInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, INF 324, Heidelberg, Germany. mazalale@gmail.com.
Stephan BrennerInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, INF 324, Heidelberg, Germany. stephan.brenner@uni-heidelberg.de.
Manuela De AllegriInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, INF 324, Heidelberg, Germany. manuela.de.allegri@urz.uni-heidelberg.de.
Adamson S MuulaSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Private Bag 360, Chichiri, Blantyre 3, Malawi. amuula@medcol.mw.
Malabika SarkerInstitute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, INF 324, Heidelberg, Germany. malabika@bracu.ac.bd.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile perceived quality of care is now widely recognized to influence health service utilization, limited research has been conducted to explore and measure perceived quality of care using quantitative tools. Our objective was to measure women's perceived quality of maternal and newborn care using a composite scale and to identify individual and service delivery factors associated with such perceptions in Malawi.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey in selected health facilities from March to May 2013. Exit interviews were conducted with 821 women convenience sampled at antenatal, delivery, and postnatal clinics using structured questionnaires. Experiences and the corresponding perceived quality of care were measured using a composite perception scale based on 27 items, clustered around three dimensions of care: interpersonal relations, conditions of the consultation and delivery rooms, and nursing care services. Statements reflecting the 27 items were read aloud and the women were asked to rate the quality of care received on a visual scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest score). For each dimension, an aggregate score was calculated using the un-weighted item means, representing three outcome variables. Descriptive statistics were used to display distribution of explanatory variables and one-way analysis of variance was used to analyse bivariate associations between the explanatory and the outcome variables.

resultsA high perceived quality of care rating was observed on interpersonal relations, conditions of the examination rooms and nursing care services with an overall mean score of 9/10. Self-introduction by the health worker, explanation of examination procedures, consent seeking, encouragement to ask questions, confidentiality protection and being offered to have a guardian during delivery were associated with a high quality rating of interpersonal relations for antenatal and delivery care services. Being literate, never experienced a still birth and, first ANC visit were associated with a high quality rating of room conditions for antenatal care service.

conclusionsThe study highlights some of the multiple factors associated with perceived quality of care. We conclude that proper interventions or practices and policies should consider these factors when making quality improvements.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthPatient SatisfactionQuality of Health CareAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansInfant, NewbornLiteracyMalawiMaternal Health ServicesPerceptionPostnatal CarePregnancy

Identifiers

PMID26275999
PMCPMC4537589

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.