Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27577266›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

Measuring progress in maternal and newborn health care in Mexico: validating indicators of health system contact and quality of care.

Ann K Blanc, Claudia Diaz, Katharine J McCarthy, Karla Berdichevsky

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Birthweight: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021
    Observational
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ann K BlancPopulation Council, New York, NY, USA. ablanc@popcouncil.org.
Claudia DiazPopulation Council, Mexico City, Mexico.
Katharine J McCarthyPopulation Council, New York, NY, USA.
Karla BerdichevskyPopulation Council, Mexico City, Mexico.
Population Council · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of births in Mexico take place in a health facility and are attended by a skilled birth attendant, yet maternal mortality has not declined to anticipated levels. Coverage estimates of skilled attendance and other maternal and newborn interventions often rely on women's self-report through a population-based survey, the accuracy of which is not well established.

methodsWe used a facility-based design to validate women's report of skilled birth attendance, as well as other key elements of maternal, newborn intrapartum, and immediate postnatal care. Women's reports of labor and delivery care were collected by exit interview prior to hospital discharge and were compared against direct observation by a trained third party in a Mexican public hospital (n = 597). For each indicator, validity was assessed at the individual level using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and at the population level using the inflation factor (IF).

resultsFive of 47 indicators met both validation criteria (AUC > 0.60 and 0.75 < IF < 1.25): urine sample screen, injection or IV medication received during labor, before the birth of the baby (i.e., uterotonic for either induction or augmentation of labor), episiotomy, excessive bleeding, and receipt of blood products. An additional 9 indicators met criteria for the AUC and 18 met criteria for the IF. A skilled attendant indicator had high sensitivity (90.1 %: 95 % CI: 87.1-92.5 %), low specificity (14.0 %: 95 % CI: 5.8-26.7 %) and was suitable for population-level estimation only.

conclusionWomen are able to give valid reports on some aspects of the content of care, although questions regarding the indication for interventions are less likely to be known. Questions that include technical terms or refer to specific time periods tended to have lower response levels. A key aspect of efforts to improve maternal and newborn health requires valid measurement of women's access to maternal and newborn health interventions and the quality of such services. Additional work on improving measurement of population coverage indicators is warranted.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultArea Under CurveFemaleHospitals, PublicHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal-Child Health ServicesMexicoPregnancyQuality Indicators, Health CareYoung AdultIndicatorsIntervention coverageMaternal and newborn healthMeasurementQuality of careSkilled birth attendanceValidation

Identifiers

PMID27577266
PMCPMC5006493
OpenAlexW2516285335

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.