Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29261449›Full record

SynthesisGlobal health action2017

Using social autopsy to understand maternal, newborn, and child mortality in low-resource settings: a systematic review of the literature.

Cheryl A Moyer, Cassidy Johnson, Elizabeth Kaselitz, Raymond Aborigo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Global health action, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

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

4 authors.

Cheryl A Moyera Departments of Learning Health Sciences and Obstetrics & Gynecology , University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor , MI , USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5796-157X
Cassidy Johnsonb Global REACH , University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor , MI , USA.
Elizabeth Kaselitzb Global REACH , University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor , MI , USA.
Raymond Aborigoc Navrongo Health Research Centre , Navrongo , UE/R Ghana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial, cultural, and behavioral factors are often potent upstream contributors to maternal, neonatal, and child mortality, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Social autopsy is one method of identifying the impact of such factors, yet it is unclear how social autopsy methods are being used in LMICs.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify the most common social autopsy instruments, describe overarching findings across populations and geography, and identify gaps in the existing social autopsy literature.

methodsA systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature from 2005 to 2016 was conducted. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC, focused on maternal/neonatal/infant/child health, reported on the results of original research, and explicitly mentioned the use of a social autopsy tool.

resultsSixteen articles out of 1950 citations were included, representing research conducted in 11 countries. Five different tools were described, with two primary conceptual frameworks used to guide analysis: Pathway to Survival and Three Delays models. Studies varied in methods for identifying deaths, and recall periods for respondents ranged from 6 weeks to 5+ years. Across studies, recognition of danger signs appeared to be high, while subsequent care-seeking was inconsistent. Cost, distance to facility, and transportation issues were frequently cited barriers to care-seeking, however, additional barriers were reported that varied by location. Gaps in the social autopsy literature include the lack of: harmonized tools and analytical methods that allow for cross-study comparisons, discussion of complexity of decision making for care seeking, qualitative narratives that address inconsistencies in responses, and the explicit inclusion of perspectives from husbands and fathers.

conclusionDespite the nascence of the field, research across 11 countries has included social autopsy methods, using a variety of tools, sampling methods, and analytical frameworks to determine how social factors impact maternal, neonatal, and child health outcomes.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesAutopsyChildChild MortalityCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMaternal MortalityPovertydeveloping countriesinfant mortalitymaternal mortalityneonatal mortalitySocial autopsyverbal autopsy

Identifiers

PMID29261449
PMCPMC5757230

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.