Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423178›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2017

Gap between contact and content in maternal and newborn care: An analysis of data from 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Liliana Carvajal-Aguirre, Agbessi Amouzou, Vrinda Mehra, Meng Ziqi, Nabila Zaka, Holly Newby

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Liliana Carvajal-AguirreData and Analytics, Division of Data, Research and Policy, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Agbessi AmouzouInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Vrinda MehraData and Analytics, Division of Data, Research and Policy, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Meng ZiqiData and Analytics, Division of Data, Research and Policy, UNICEF, New York, New York, USA.
Nabila ZakaUNICEF, Program Division, New York, New York, USA.
Holly NewbyIndependent consultant.
United Nations Children's Fund · USJohns Hopkins University · USUnited Nations Children's Fund Cameroon · CM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last decade, coverage of maternal and newborn health indicators used for global monitoring and reporting have increased substantially but reductions in maternal and neonatal mortality have remained slow. This has led to an increased recognition and concern that these standard globally agreed upon measures of antenatal care (ANC), skilled birth attendance (SBA) and postnatal care (PNC) only capture the level of contacts with the health system and provide little indication of actual content of services received by mothers and their newborns. Over this period, large household surveys have captured measures of maternal and newborn care mainly through questions assessing contacts during the antenatal, delivery and postnatal periods along with some measures of content of care. This study aims to describe the gap between contact and content -as a proxy for quality- of maternal and newborn health services by assessing level of co-coverage of ANC and PNC interventions.

methodsWe used Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data from 20 countries between 2010 and 2015. We analysed the proportion of women with at least 1 and 4+ antenatal care visit, who received 8 interventions. We also assessed the percentage of newborns delivered with a skilled birth attendant who received 7 interventions. We ran random effect logistic regression to assess factors associated with receiving all interventions during the antenatal and postnatal period.

resultsWhile on average 51% of women in the analysis received four ANC visits with at least one visit from a skilled health provider, only 5% of them received all 8 ANC interventions. Similarly, during the postnatal period though two-thirds (65%) of births were attended by a skilled birth attendant, only 3% of newborns received all 7 PNC interventions. The odds of receiving all ANC and PNC interventions were higher for women with higher education and higher wealth status.

conclusionThe gap between coverage and content as a proxy of quality of antenatal and postnatal care is excessively large in all countries. In order to accelerate maternal and newborn survival and achieve Sustainable Development Goals, increased efforts are needed to improve both the coverage and quality of maternal and newborn health interventions.

Indexed as

Africa South of the SaharaDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal Health ServicesPostnatal CarePregnancyPrenatal Care

Identifiers

PMID29423178
PMCPMC5804037
OpenAlexW2776422648

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.