Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29506531›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2018

Group antenatal care models in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic evidence synthesis.

Jigyasa Sharma, Meaghan O'Connor, R Rima Jolivet

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  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. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pregnancy follow-ups in Family Medicine: A retrospective study.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. [Burden of congenital birth defects in children under five in China from 1990 to 2021 and prediction of future trend].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Jigyasa SharmaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Meaghan O'ConnorMaternal Health Task Force, Women & Health Initiative, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 651 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
R Rima JolivetMaternal Health Task Force, Women & Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 651 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. rjolivet@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1440-4722

Funding

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 15-107912-000- INP
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.

Indexed as

Health ResourcesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansPatient SatisfactionPovertyPregnancyPrenatal CareAntenatal careGroup care during pregnancyPrenatal careQualitative evidence synthesisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29506531
PMCPMC5836451

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.