Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29206833›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2017

Effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action on preventive and care-seeking behaviours to reduce neonatal mortality: A meta-analysis of cluster-randomised trials.

Nadine Seward, Melissa Neuman, Tim Colbourn, David Osrin, Sonia Lewycka, Kishwar Azad, Anthony Costello, Sushmita Das, Edward Fottrell, Abdul Kuddus and 7 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Nadine SewardInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4821-9437
Melissa NeumanInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Tim ColbournInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6917-6552
David OsrinInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-9684
Sonia LewyckaNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7125-9998
Kishwar AzadPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Anthony CostelloInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sushmita DasSociety for Nutrition, Education & Health Action, Mumbai, India.
Edward FottrellInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0518-7161
Abdul KuddusPerinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5561-0031
Dharma ManandharMother and Infant Research Activities (MIRA), Kathmandu, Nepal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8699-6774
Nirmala NairEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Bejoy NambiarInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1742-522X
Neena Shah MoreSociety for Nutrition, Education & Health Action, Mumbai, India.
Tambosi PhiriParent and Child Health Initiative Trust, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Prasanta TripathyEkjut, Chakradharpur, India.
Audrey ProstInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization recommends participatory learning and action (PLA) in women's groups to improve maternal and newborn health, particularly in rural settings with low access to health services. There have been calls to understand the pathways through which this community intervention may affect neonatal mortality. We examined the effect of women's groups on key antenatal, delivery, and postnatal behaviours in order to understand pathways to mortality reduction. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a meta-analysis using data from 7 cluster-randomised controlled trials that took place between 2001 and 2012 in rural India (2 trials), urban India (1 trial), rural Bangladesh (2 trials), rural Nepal (1 trial), and rural Malawi (1 trial), with the number of participants ranging between 6,125 and 29,901 live births. Behavioural outcomes included appropriate antenatal care, facility delivery, use of a safe delivery kit, hand washing by the birth attendant prior to delivery, use of a sterilised instrument to cut the umbilical cord, immediate wrapping of the newborn after delivery, delayed bathing of the newborn, early initiation of breastfeeding, and exclusive breastfeeding. We used 2-stage meta-analysis techniques to estimate the effect of the women's group intervention on behavioural outcomes. In the first stage, we used random effects models with individual patient data to assess the effect of groups on outcomes separately for the different trials. In the second stage of the meta-analysis, random effects models were applied using summary-level estimates calculated in the first stage of the analysis. To determine whether behaviour change was related to group attendance, we used random effects models to assess associations between outcomes and the following categories of group attendance and allocation: women attending a group and allocated to the intervention arm; women not attending a group but allocated to the intervention arm; and women allocated to the control arm. Overall, women's groups practising PLA improved behaviours during and after home deliveries, including the use of safe delivery kits (odds ratio [OR] 2.92, 95% CI 2.02-4.22; I2 = 63.7%, 95% CI 4.4%-86.2%), use of a sterile blade to cut the umbilical cord (1.88, 1.25-2.82; 67.6%, 16.1%-87.5%), birth attendant washing hands prior to delivery (1.87, 1.19-2.95; 79%, 53.8%-90.4%), delayed bathing of the newborn for at least 24 hours (1.47, 1.09-1.99; 68.0%, 29.2%-85.6%), and wrapping the newborn within 10 minutes of delivery (1.27, 1.02-1.60; 0.0%, 0%-79.2%). Effects were partly dependent on the proportion of pregnant women attending groups. We did not find evidence of effects on uptake of antenatal care (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77-1.38; I2 = 86.3%, 95% CI 73.8%-92.8%), facility delivery (1.02, 0.93-1.12; 21.4%, 0%-65.8%), initiating breastfeeding within 1 hour (1.08, 0.85-1.39; 76.6%, 50.9%-88.8%), or exclusive breastfeeding for 6 weeks after delivery (1.18, 0.93-1.48; 72.9%, 37.8%-88.2%). The main limitation of our analysis is the high degree of heterogeneity for effects on most behaviours, possibly due to the limited number of trials involving women's groups and context-specific effects.

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that women's groups practising PLA improve key behaviours on the pathway to neonatal mortality, with the strongest evidence for home care behaviours and practices during home deliveries. A lack of consistency in improved behaviours across all trials may reflect differences in local priorities, capabilities, and the responsiveness of health services. Future research could address the mechanisms behind how PLA improves survival, in order to adapt this method to improve maternal and newborn health in different contexts, as well as improve other outcomes across the continuum of care for women, children, and adolescents.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorInfant MortalityPrenatal CareWomenBangladeshCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansIndiaInfantInfant, NewbornMalawiNepalPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID29206833
PMCPMC5716527

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.