Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28464842›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention for obstetric and neonatal care in selected public health facilities across six states of India.

Enisha Sarin, Subir K Kole, Rachana Patel, Ankur Sooden, Sanchit Kharwal, Rashmi Singh, Mirwais Rahimzai, Nigel Livesley

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gaps in the coverage of vitamin KPublic health nutrition · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

Enisha SarinConsultant, University Research Company, India Pvt. Ltd B7, 1st floor, Suncity, Gurgaon, 122002, Haryana, India. esarin@jhsph.edu.
Subir K KoleData Manager, University Research Company, India Pvt. Ltd, T8-502 Amrapali Grand Sector Zeta 1, Greater Noida, 201306, UP, India.
Rachana PatelConsultant, University Research Company, India Pvt. Ltd. E 5, NTRO scientist Hostel, Behind Sahastra Seema Bal, Aya Nagar, Delhi, 110047, India.
Ankur SoodenSenior Advisor, University Research Company, 1st floor, LMR House, S-16, Uphaar Commercial Complex, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, 110016, India.
Sanchit KharwalDoctoral Fellow (Social Epidemiology), Humanities and Social Sciences Discipline, Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, India.
Rashmi SinghLead- Quality and Process Improvement, ACCESS Health International, Nilgiri building, IIIT, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, India.
Mirwais RahimzaiProject Director, University Research Company, Plot 40, Ntinda II Road, Kampala, Uganda.
Nigel LivesleyProject Director, University Research Company, 1st floor, LMR House, S-16, Uphaar Commercial Complex, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, 110016, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile increase in the number of women delivering in health facilities has been rapid, the quality of obstetric and neonatal care continues to be poor in India, contributing to high maternal and neonatal mortality.

methodsThe USAID ASSIST Project supported health workers in 125 public health facilities (delivering approximately 180,000 babies per year) across six states to use quality improvement (QI) approaches to provide better care to women and babies before, during and immediately after delivery. As part of this intervention, each month, health workers recorded data related to nine elements of routine care alongside data on perinatal mortality. We aggregated facility level data and conducted segmented regression to analyse the effect of the intervention over time.

resultsCare improved to 90-99% significantly (p < 0.001) for eight of the nine process elements. A significant (p < 0.001) positive change of 30-70% points was observed during post intervention for all the indicators and 3-17% points month-to-month progress shown from the segmented results. Perinatal mortality declined from 26.7 to 22.9 deaths/1000 live births (p < 0.01) over time, however, it is not clear that the intervention had any significant effect on it.

conclusionThese results demonstrate the effectiveness of QI approaches in improving provision of routine care, yet these approaches are underused in the Indian health system. We discuss the implications of this for policy makers.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdolescentAdultFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesPerinatal MortalityPregnancyProgram EvaluationYoung AdultHealth care deliveryHealth system strengtheningIndiaNeonatal careObstetric careQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID28464842
PMCPMC5414154

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.