ArticleBMJ open2017
Determinants of knowledge of critical danger signs, safe childbirth and immediate newborn care practices among auxiliary midwives: a cross sectional survey in Myanmar.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening midwifery in the South-East Asian region: A scoping review of midwifery-related research.PloS one · 2023Article
- The determinant of healthcare childbirth among young people in Indonesia.Journal of public health research · 2021Article
- Article
- Novel approaches to measuring knowledge among frontline health workers in India: Are phone surveys a reliable option?PloS one · 2020Article
- The salt between the beans: a qualitative study of the role of auxiliary midwives in a hard-to-reach area of Myanmar.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- The potential of task shifting selected maternal interventions to auxiliary midwives in Myanmar: a mixed-method study.BMC public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe re-emergence of community-based health workers such as the auxiliary midwives (AMWs) in Myanmar, who are local female volunteers, has been an important strategy to address global health workforce shortages. The Myanmar government recommends one AMW for every village. The aim of this study is to investigate the current knowledge of critical danger signs and practices for safe childbirth and immediate newborn care of AMWs to inform potential task shifting of additional healthcare responsibilities.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from July 2015 to June 2016 in three hard-to-reach areas in Myanmar. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using a pretested questionnaire.
resultsAmong 262 AMWs participating in the study, only 8% of AMWs were able to identify at least 80% of 20 critical danger signs. Factors associated with greater knowledge of critical danger signs included older age over 35 years (adjusted OR (AOR) 2.19, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.83), having received refresher training within the last year (AOR 2.20, 95% CI 1.21 to 4.01) and receiving adequate supervision (AOR 5.04, 95% CI 2.74 to 9.29). Those who employed all six safe childbirth and immediate newborn care practices were more likely to report greater knowledge of danger signs (AOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.26), adequate work supervision (AOR 3.18 95% CI 1.62 to 6.24) and less education (AOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88).
conclusionThe low level of knowledge of critical danger signs and reported practices for safe childbirth identified suggest that an evaluation of the current AMW training and supervision programme needs to be revisited to ensure that existing practices, including recognition of danger signs, meet quality care standards before new interventions are introduced or new responsibilities given to AMWs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.