Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29241615›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Global health2018

Provision of medical supply kits to improve quality of antenatal care in Mozambique: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

Ana Pilar Betrán, Eduardo Bergel, Sally Griffin, Armando Melo, My Huong Nguyen, Alicia Carbonell, Santos Mondlane, Mario Merialdi, Marleen Temmerman, A Metin Gülmezoglu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Ana Pilar BetránUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: betrana@who.int.
Eduardo BergelUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sally GriffinInternational Center for Reproductive Health, Maputo, Mozambique.
Armando MeloMozambique Ministry of Health, Maputo, Mozambique.
My Huong NguyenUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Alicia CarbonellMozambique Country Office, World Health Organization, Maputo, Mozambique.
Santos MondlaneConsultório de Estatística e Serviço de Soluções, Maputo, Mozambique.
Mario MerialdiUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; BD Global Health, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA.
Marleen TemmermanUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; International Center for Reproductive Health Global, Ghent, Belgium; Aga Khan University East Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
A Metin GülmezogluUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO Antenatal Care Trial in Mozambique Research Group
World Health Organization · CHAga Khan University Nairobi · KEInternational Centre for Reproductive Health · MZMinistry of Health · MZ

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh levels of maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity remain a daunting reality in many low-income countries. Several interventions delivered during antenatal care have been shown to improve maternal and newborn outcomes, but stockouts of medical supplies at point of care can prevent implementation of these services. We aimed to evaluate whether a supply chain strategy based on the provision of kits could improve quality of care.

methodsWe did a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial at ten antenatal care clinics in Mozambique. Clinics were eligible if they were not already implementing the proposed antenatal care package; they served at least 200 new pregnant women per year; they had Maternal and Child Health (MCH) nurses; and they were willing to participate. All women attending antenatal care visits at the participating clinics were included in the trial. Participating clinics were randomly assigned to shift from control to intervention on prespecified start dates. The intervention involved four components (kits with medical supplies, a cupboard to store these supplies, a tracking sheet to monitor stocks, and a one-day training session). The primary outcomes were the proportion of women screened for anaemia and proteinuria, and the proportion of women who received mebendazole in the first antenatal care visit. The intervention was delivered under routine care conditions, and analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201306000550192.

findingsBetween March, 2014, and January, 2016, 218 277 antenatal care visits were registered, with 68 598 first and 149 679 follow-up visits. We found significant improvements in all three primary outcomes. In first visits, 5519 (14·6%) of 37 826 women were screened for anaemia in the control period, compared with 30 057 (97·7%) of 30 772 in the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio 832·40; 99% CI 666·81-1039·11; p<0·0001); 3739 (9·9%) of 37 826 women were screened for proteinuria in the control period, compared with 29 874 (97·1%) of 30 772 in the intervention period (1875·18; 1447·56-2429·11; p<0·0001); and 17 926 (51·4%) of 34 842 received mebendazole in the control period, compared with 24 960 (88·2%) of 28 294 in the intervention period (1·88; 1·70-2·09; p<0·0001). The effect was immediate and sustained over time, with negligible heterogeneity between sites.

interpretationA supply chain strategy that resolves stockouts at point of care can result in a vast improvement in quality during antenatal care visits, when compared with the routine national process for procurement and distribution of supplies.

fundingGovernment of Flanders and the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.

Indexed as

AdultCluster AnalysisEquipment and SuppliesFemaleHumansMozambiquePregnancyPrenatal CareQuality ImprovementYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29241615
PMCPMC5732314
OpenAlexW2774632938

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.