Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29543884›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Listening to the community: Using formative research to strengthen maternity waiting homes in Zambia.

Nancy A Scott, Taryn Vian, Jeanette L Kaiser, Thandiwe Ngoma, Kaluba Mataka, Elizabeth G Henry, Godfrey Biemba, Mary Nambao, Davidson H Hamer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

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

9 authors.

Nancy A ScottDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4713-4642
Taryn VianDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jeanette L KaiserDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Thandiwe NgomaZambia Center for Applied Health Research and Development (ZCAHRD), Lusaka, Zambia.
Kaluba MatakaZambia Center for Applied Health Research and Development (ZCAHRD), Lusaka, Zambia.
Elizabeth G HenryDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2547-597X
Godfrey BiembaDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Mary NambaoDepartment of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Davidson H HamerDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4700-1495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe WHO recommends maternity waiting homes (MWH) as one intervention to improve maternal and newborn health. However, persistent structural, cultural and financial barriers in their design and implementation have resulted in mixed success in both their uptake and utilization. Guidance is needed on how to design a MWH intervention that is acceptable and sustainable. Using formative research and guided by a sustainability framework for health programs, we systematically collected data from key stakeholders and potential users in order to design a MWH intervention in Zambia that could overcome multi-dimensional barriers to accessing facility delivery, be acceptable to the community and be financially and operationally sustainable. METHODS AND

findingsWe used a concurrent triangulation study design and mixed methods. We used free listing to gather input from a total of 167 randomly sampled women who were pregnant or had a child under the age of two (n = 59), men with a child under the age of two (n = 53), and community elders (n = 55) living in the catchment areas of four rural health facilities in Zambia. We conducted 17 focus group discussions (n = 135) among a purposive sample of pregnant women (n = 33), mothers-in-law (n = 32), traditional birth attendants or community maternal health promoters (n = 38), and men with a child under two (n = 32). We administered 38 semi-structured interviews with key informants who were identified by free list respondents as having a stake in the condition and use of MWHs. Lastly, we projected fixed and variable recurrent costs for operating a MWH. Respondents most frequently mentioned distance, roads, transport, and the quality of MWHs and health facilities as the major problems facing pregnant women in their communities. They also cited inadequate advanced planning for delivery and the lack of access to delivery supplies and baby clothes as other problems. Respondents identified the main problems of MWHs specifically as over-crowding, poor infrastructure, lack of amenities, safety concerns, and cultural issues. To support operational sustainability, community members were willing to participate on oversight committees and contribute labor. The annual fixed recurrent cost per 10-bed MWH was estimated as USD543, though providing food and charcoal added another $3,000USD. Respondents identified water pumps, an agriculture shop, a shop for baby clothes and general goods, and grinding mills as needs in their communities that could potentially be linked with an MWH for financial sustainability.

conclusionsFindings informed the development of an intervention model for renovating existing MWH or constructing new MWH that meets community standards of safety, comfort and services offered and is aligned with government policies related to facility construction, ownership, and access to health services. The basic strategies of the new MWH model include improving community acceptability, strengthening governance and accountability, and building upon existing efforts to foster financial and operational sustainability. The proposed model addresses the problems cited by our respondents and challenges to MWHs identified by in previous studies and elicits opportunities for social enterprises that could serve the dual purpose of meeting a community need and generating revenue for the MWH.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleAdultAgedCommunity ParticipationFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMaternal Health ServicesMiddle AgedMidwiferyModels, OrganizationalPregnancyPrenatal Care

Identifiers

PMID29543884
PMCPMC5854412

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.