Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30153848›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2018

Expanding the agenda for addressing mistreatment in maternity care: a mapping review and gender analysis.

Myra L Betron, Tracy L McClair, Sheena Currie, Joya Banerjee

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 107 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Person-centred sexual and reproductive health: A call for standardized measurement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Review
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Myra L BetronUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Jhpiego, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20036, USA. Myra.Betron@jhpiego.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1307-2949
Tracy L McClairJhpiego, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
Sheena CurrieUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Jhpiego, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20036, USA.
Joya BanerjeeUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Jhpiego, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC, 20036, USA.
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs · US

Funding

USAID Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-A-14-00028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper responds to the global call to action for respectful maternity care (RMC) by examining whether and how gender inequalities and unequal power dynamics in the health system undermine quality of care or obstruct women's capacities to exercise their rights as both users and providers of maternity care.

methodsWe conducted a mapping review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to examine whether gender inequality is a determinant of mistreatment during childbirth. A search for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1995 and September 2017 in PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases, supplemented by an appeal to experts in the field, yielded 127 unique articles. We reviewed these articles using a gender analysis framework that categorizes gender inequalities into four key domains: access to assets, beliefs and perceptions, practices and participation, and institutions, laws, and policies. A total of 37 articles referred to gender inequalities in the four domains and were included in the analysis.

resultsThe mapping indicates that there have been important advances in documenting mistreatment at the health facility, but less attention has been paid to addressing the associated structural gender inequalities. The limited evidence available shows that pregnant and laboring women lack information and financial assets, voice, and agency to exercise their rights to RMC. Women who defy traditional feminine stereotypes of chastity and serenity often experience mistreatment by providers as a result. At the same time, mistreatment of women inside and outside of the health facility is normalized and accepted, including by women themselves. As for health care providers, gender discrimination is manifested through degrading working conditions, lack of respect for their abilities, violence and harassment,, lack of mobility in the community, lack of voice within their work setting, and limited training opportunities and professionalization. All of these inequalities erode their ability to deliver high quality care.

conclusionWhile the evidence base is limited, the literature clearly shows that gender inequality-for both clients and providers-contributes to mistreatment and abuse in maternity care. Researchers, advocates, and practitioners need to further investigate and build upon lessons from the broader gender equality, violence prevention, and rights-based health movements to expand the agenda on mistreatment in childbirth and develop effective interventions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth PersonnelHuman Rights AbusesHumansMaternal Health ServicesMidwiferyParturitionPregnancyQuality of Health CareDisrespect and abuseGenderGender-based violenceMaternal healthMistreatmentQuality of careRespectful maternity care (RMC)

Identifiers

PMID30153848
PMCPMC6114528
OpenAlexW2889297133

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.