Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30126357›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Silent voices: institutional disrespect and abuse during delivery among women of Varanasi district, northern India.

Shreeporna Bhattacharya, T K Sundari Ravindran

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Global prevalence and risk factors of obstetric violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shreeporna BhattacharyaJhpiego, Raipur, India. shreeporna.bhattacharya8819@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7400-2346
T K Sundari RavindranAchutha Menon Centre For Health Science Studies, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 695011, India.
National Institute of Technology Raipur · INSree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA considerable amount of qualitative evidence reporting abusive treatment of women during delivery by health providers is available. However, there is a dearth of information regarding the actual prevalence and nature of such abuse, which this study aimed to explore.

methodsWe conducted a community based cross-sectional study using a contextually adapted version of the Staha (meaning 'respect' in Swahili) project questionnaire among 410 rural women who delivered between June, 2014 to August 2015 at any health facility of Varanasi district, northern India. We selected the women through multi-stage cluster random sampling from two rural blocks of Varanasi, which recorded the highest number of institutional deliveries in 2014-15.

resultsThe frequency of any abusive behavior (excluding inappropriate demands of money due to its high prevalence-90.5%) was 28.8%. The reported abuses were non-dignified care including verbal abuse and derogatory insults related to the woman's sexual behavior (19.3%); physical abuse (13.4%); neglect or abandonment (8.5%); non-confidential care (5.6%); and feeling humiliation due to lack of cleanliness bordering on filth (4.9%). Women were abused during labor or delivery irrespective of their socio-demographic background. Bivariate analysis using Chi-square tests showed statistically significant associations between abuse and provider type, facility type, and presence of complications during delivery. Binary logistic regression indicated that the odds of being abused was four times higher in those women who experienced complications during delivery. Though statistically insignificant, and contrary to expectations, women also seemed to be abused in private institutions; but with a lower frequency and of lesser severity.

conclusionsThe prevalence of disrespect and abuse during labor or delivery was high among women irrespective of their socio-demographic background or delivery conditions in government as well as private health facilities. If the problem of disrespect and abuse is not addressed, it can be assumed that such harsh practices might promote home deliveries, which despite being more unsafe provide an empathetic environment in lieu of safe facility-based birthing options.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelProfessional-Patient RelationsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansIndiaInstitutional PracticeMaternal Health ServicesPregnancyPrevalenceQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesViolenceAbuseCross-sectionalHealth providersIndiaInstitutional deliveryObstetric violencePregnant women

Identifiers

PMID30126357
PMCPMC6102865
OpenAlexW2888006607

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.