Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29374486›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Quality of care during childbirth in Tanzania: identification of areas that need improvement.

Andrea Solnes Miltenburg, Richard Forget Kiritta, Tarek Meguid, Johanne Sundby

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Effect of the competency-basedBMJ global health · 2019
    Article
  15. The Use of Ethnography in Maternity Care.Global qualitative nursing research
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea Solnes MiltenburgInstitute of Health and Society, Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. a.solnesmiltenburg@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4681-7043
Richard Forget KirittaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sekotoure Regional Referral Hospital, Mwanza, Mwanza Region, Tanzania.
Tarek MeguidDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Johanne SundbyInstitute of Health and Society, Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

Norges Forskningsråd 244674
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaking use of good, evidence based routines, for management of normal childbirth is essential to ensure quality of care and prevent, identify and manage complications if they occur. Two essential routine care interventions as defined by the World Health Organization are the use of the Partograph and Active Management of the Third Stage of Labour. Both interventions have been evaluated for their ability to assist health providers to detect and deal with complications. There is however little research about the quality of such interventions for routine care. Qualitative studies can help to understand how such complex interventions are implemented. This paper reports on findings from an observation study on maternity wards in Tanzania.

methodsThe study took place in the Lake Zone in Tanzania. Between 2014 and 2016 the first author observed and participated in the care for women on maternity wards in four rural and semi-urban health facilities. The data is a result of approximately 1300 hours of observations, systematically recorded primarily in observation notes and notes of informal conversations with health providers, women and their families. Detailed description of care processes were analysed using an ethnographic analysis approach focused on the sequential relationship of the 'stages of labour'. Themes were identified through identification of recurrent patterns.

resultsThree themes were identified: 1) Women's movement between rooms during birth, 2) health providers' assumptions and hope for a 'normal' birth, 3) fear of poor outcomes that stimulates intervention during birth. Women move between different rooms during childbirth which influences the care they receive. Few women were monitored during their first stage of labour. Routine birth monitoring appeared absent due to health providers 'assumptions and hope for good outcomes. This was rooted in a general belief that most women eventually give birth without problems and the partograph did not correspond with health providers' experience of the birth process. Contextual circumstances also limited health worker ability to act in case of complications. At the same time, fear for being held personally responsible for outcomes triggered active intervention in second stage of labour, even if there was no indication to intervene.

conclusionsInsufficient monitoring leads to poor preparedness of health providers both for normal birth and in case of complications. As a result both underuse and overuse of interventions contribute to poor quality of care. Risk and complication management have for many years been prioritized at the expense of routine care for all women. Complex evaluations are needed to understand the current implementation gaps and find ways for improving quality of care for all women.

Indexed as

ParturitionQuality of Health CareAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleFetal MonitoringHumansLabor, ObstetricMaternal Health ServicesNeeds AssessmentPregnancyQuality ImprovementTanzaniaYoung AdultActive Management of Third Stage of LabourMaternal HealthParticipant ObservationPartographQuality of Care

Identifiers

PMID29374486
PMCPMC5787311
OpenAlexW2786551853

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.