Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26679709›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Innovative approaches for improving maternal and newborn health--A landscape analysis.

Karsten Lunze, Ariel Higgins-Steele, Aline Simen-Kapeu, Linda Vesel, Julia Kim, Kim Dickson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  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. 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

6 authors.

Karsten LunzeDepartment of Medicine Boston, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. karsten.lunze@post.harvard.edu.
Ariel Higgins-SteeleHealth Section, UNICEF, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, 10017, USA. ahiggins@unicef.org.
Aline Simen-KapeuHealth Section, UNICEF, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, 10017, USA. askapeu@unicef.org.
Linda VeselHealth Section, UNICEF, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, 10017, USA. linda.vesel@gmail.com.
Julia KimHealth Section, UNICEF, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, 10017, USA. juliackim99@gmail.com.
Kim DicksonHealth Section, UNICEF, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY, 10017, USA. kdickson@unicef.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEssential interventions can improve maternal and newborn health (MNH) outcomes in low- and middle-income countries, but their implementation has been challenging. Innovative MNH approaches have the potential to accelerate progress and to lead to better health outcomes for women and newborns, but their added value to health systems remains incompletely understood. This study's aim was to analyze the landscape of innovative MNH approaches and related published evidence.

methodsSystematic literature review and descriptive analysis based on the MNH continuum of care framework and the World Health Organization health system building blocks, analyzing the range and nature of currently published MNH approaches that are considered innovative. We used 11 databases (MedLine, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, Popline, BLDS, ELDIS, 3ie, CAB direct, WHO Global Health Library and WHOLIS) as data source and extracted data according to our study protocol.

resultsMost innovative approaches in MNH are iterations of existing interventions, modified for contexts in which they had not been applied previously. Many aim at the direct organization and delivery of maternal and newborn health services or are primarily health workforce interventions. Innovative approaches also include health technologies, interventions based on community ownership and participation, and novel models of financing and policy making. Rigorous randomized trials to assess innovative MNH approaches are rare; most evaluations are smaller pilot studies. Few studies assessed intervention effects on health outcomes or focused on equity in health care delivery.

conclusionsFuture implementation and evaluation efforts need to assess innovations' effects on health outcomes and provide evidence on potential for scale-up, considering cost, feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability. Measuring equity is an important aspect to identify and target population groups at risk of service inequity. Innovative MNH interventions will need innovative implementation, evaluation and scale-up strategies for their sustainable integration into health systems.

Indexed as

Financial SupportHealth WorkforceDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInfant HealthInfant, NewbornLeadershipMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyResidence Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID26679709
PMCPMC4683742

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.