Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27214032›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Measuring What Works: An Impact Evaluation of Women's Groups on Maternal Health Uptake in Rural Nepal.

Sheetal Sharma, Edwin van Teijlingen, José M Belizán, Vanora Hundley, Padam Simkhada, Elisa Sicuri

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sheetal SharmaFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Dorset, United Kingdom.
Edwin van TeijlingenFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Dorset, United Kingdom.
José M BelizánInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Vanora HundleyFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Dorset, United Kingdom.
Padam SimkhadaCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Elisa SicuriISGlobal, Barcelona Ctr. Int. Health Res. (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Bournemouth University · GBInstituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria · ARLiverpool John Moores University · GBUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need for studies evaluating maternal health interventions in low-income countries. This paper evaluates one such intervention designed to promote maternal health among rural women in Nepal. METHODS AND

resultsThis was a five-year controlled, non-randomised, repeated cross-sectional study (2007, 2010, 2012) of a participatory community-based maternal health promotion intervention focusing on women's groups to improve maternal health services uptake. In total 1,236 women of childbearing age, who had their last child ≤ two years ago, were interviewed. Difference-in-Difference estimation assessed the effects of the intervention on selected outcome variables while controlling for a constructed wealth index and women's characteristics. In the first three years (from 2007 to the 2010), the intervention increased women's likelihood of attending for antenatal care at least once during pregnancy by seven times [OR = 7.0, 95%CI (2.3; 21.4)], of taking iron and folic acid by three times [OR = 3.0, 95%CI (1.2; 7.8)], and of seeking four or more antenatal care visits of two times, although not significantly [OR = 2.2, 95%CI (1.0; 4.7)]. Over five years, women were more likely to seek antenatal care at least once [OR = 3.0, 95%CI (1.5; 5.2)], to take iron/folic acid [OR = 1.9, [95% CI (1.1; 3.2)], and to attend postnatal care [OR = 1.5, [95% CI (1.1; 2.2)]. No improvement was found on attending antenatal care in the first trimester, birthing at an institution or with a skilled birth attendant.

conclusionCommunity-based health promotion has a much stronger effect on the uptake of antenatal care and less on delivery care. Other factors not easily resolved through health promotion interventions may influence these outcomes, such as costs or geographical constraints. The evaluation has implications for policy and practice in public health, especially maternal health promotion.

Indexed as

Health PromotionSelf-Help GroupsAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEfficiency, OrganizationalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal HealthMaternal Health ServicesMaternal Mortality

Identifiers

PMID27214032
PMCPMC4877042
OpenAlexW2406503408

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.