ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017
Implementing the WHO integrated tool to assess quality of care for mothers, newborns and children: results and lessons learnt from five districts in Malawi.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Added value of an open narrative in verbal autopsies: a mixed-methods evaluation from Malawi.BMJ paediatrics open · 2021Trial
- An effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 1 trial assessing the impact of group versus individual antenatal care on maternal and infant outcomes in Malawi.BMC public health · 2020Trial
- Evaluating the impact of a longitudinal mentorship intervention on the documentation of maternal vital signs in Blantyre district, Malawi.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Instructional guidelines and group discussion effects on new nurses' competency regarding nursing care of preterm infants.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Quality of hospital labour and delivery care: A multilevel analysis in Southern Nations and Nationalities People's Region of Ethiopia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Cross sectional survey of maternal and newborn quality of care in Niger: Selected findings, lessons learned and recommendations.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The Journey Toward Establishing Inpatient Care for Small and Sick Newborns in Ethiopia, India, Malawi, and Rwanda.Global health, science and practice · 2023Article
- Structural quality of labor and delivery care in government hospitals of Ethiopia: a descriptive analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Challenges and recommendations to improve implementation of phototherapy among neonates in Malawian hospitals.BMC pediatrics · 2022Article
- Baseline assessment of the WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA maternal and newborn quality-of-care standards around childbirth: Results from an intermediate hospital, northeast Namibia.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Monitoring healthcare improvement for mothers and newborns: A quantitative review of WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA standards using Every Mother Every Newborn assessment tools.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Resource availability and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns in hospitals in the southern region of Malawi: A multisite observational study.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessing quality of newborn care at district facilities in Malawi.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Severe malaria management: current situation, challenges and lessons learned from Gezira State, Sudan.Malaria journal · 2019Article
- The quality of childbirth in the light of research the new guidelines of the World Health Organization and Polish Perinatal Care Standards.Developmental period medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2014 the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a new tool to be used to assess the quality of care for mothers, newborns and children provided at healthcare facility level. This paper reports on the feasibility of using the tool, its limitations and strengths.
methodsAcross 5 districts in Malawi, 35 healthcare facilities were assessed. The WHO tool includes checklists, interviews and observation of case management by which care is assessed against agreed standards using a Likert scale (1 lowest: not meeting standard, 5 highest: compliant with standard). Descriptive statistics were used to provide summary scores for each standard. A 'dashboard' system was developed to display the results.
resultsFor maternal care three areas met standards; 1) supportive care for admitted patients (71% of healthcare facilities scored 4 or 5); 2) prevention and management of infections during pregnancy (71% scored 4 or 5); and 3) management of unsatisfactory progress of labour (84% scored 4 or 5). Availability of essential equipment and supplies was noted to be a critical barrier to achieving satisfactory standards of paediatric care (mean score; standard deviation: 2.9; SD 0.95) and child care (2.7; SD 1.1). Infection control is inadequate across all districts for maternal, newborn and paediatric care. Quality of care varies across districts with a mean (SD) score for all standards combined of 3 (SD 0.19) for the worst performing district and 4 (SD 0.27) for the best. The best performing district has an average score of 4 (SD 0.27). Hospitals had good scores for overall infrastructure, essential drugs, organisation of care and management of preterm labour. However, health centres were better at case management of HIV/AIDS patients and follow-up of sick children.
conclusionsThere is a need to develop an expanded framework of standards which is inclusive of all areas of care. In addition, it is important to ensure structure, process and outcomes of health care are reflected.
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.