Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29615069›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Exploring perceptions of group antenatal Care in Urban India: results of a feasibility study.

R Rima Jolivet, Bella Vasant Uttekar, Meaghan O'Connor, Kanchan Lakhwani, Jigyasa Sharma, Mary Nell Wegner

Abstract 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 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

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

6 authors.

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
Bella Vasant UttekarCentre for Operations Research and Training, 402 Woodland Apartment, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390 007, India.
Meaghan O'ConnorMaternal Health Task Force, Women & Health Initiative, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 651 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Kanchan LakhwaniCentre for Operations Research and Training, 402 Woodland Apartment, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390 007, India.
Jigyasa SharmaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Mary Nell WegnerMaternal 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.

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundMaking high-quality health care available to all women during pregnancy is a critical strategy for improving perinatal outcomes for mothers and babies everywhere. Research from high-income countries suggests that antenatal care delivered in a group may be an effective way to improve the provision, experiences, and outcomes of care for pregnant women and newborns. A number of researchers and programmers are adapting group antenatal care (ANC) models for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but the evidence base from these settings is limited and no studies to date have assessed the feasibility and acceptability of group ANC in India.

methodsWe adapted a "generic" model of group antenatal care developed through a systematic scoping review of the existing evidence on group ANC in LMICs for use in an urban setting in India, after looking at local, national and global guidelines to tailor the model content. We demonstrated one session of the model to physicians, auxiliary nurse midwives, administrators, pregnant women, and support persons from three different types of health facilities in Vadodara, India and used qualitative methods to gather and analyze feedback from participants on the perceived feasibility and acceptability of the model.

resultsProviders and recipients of care expressed support and enthusiasm for the model and offered specific feedback on its components: physical assessment, active learning, and social support. In general, after witnessing a demonstration of the model, both groups of participants-providers and beneficiaries-saw group ANC as a vehicle for delivering more comprehensive ANC services, improving experiences of care, empowering women to become more active partners and participants in their care, and potentially addressing some current health system challenges.

conclusionThis study suggests that introducing group ANC would be feasible and acceptable to stakeholders from various care delivery settings, including an urban primary health clinic, a community-based mother and child health center, and a private hospital, in urban India.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesPerceptionPregnancyPrenatal CareAntenatal careFeasibility studyGroup careIndiaPrenatal careQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID29615069
PMCPMC5883286

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.