Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30161201›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

The impact of geographic access on institutional delivery care use in low and middle-income countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Teketo Kassaw Tegegne, Catherine Chojenta, Deborah Loxton, Roger Smith, Kelemu Tilahun Kibret

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Worldwide Wellness of Mothers and Babies (WWOMB): program overview and lessons learned from Ethiopia.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

5 authors.

Teketo Kassaw TegegneDepartment of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-9137-3632
Catherine ChojentaResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Deborah LoxtonResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Roger SmithMothers and Babies Research Centre, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Kelemu Tilahun KibretResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeographic access to obstetric care facilities has a significant influence on women's uptake of institutional delivery care. However, this effect was not consistent across studies. Some studies reported that geographic access to obstetric care facilities had no influence on the use of facility delivery. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized and pooled the influence of geographic access on institutional delivery service uptake in low and middle-income countries.

methodsMultiple combinations of search terms were used to search articles from six databases and a hand search of reference lists performed. We included observational studies conducted in low and middle-income countries which reported the influence of geographic access on delivery care use. The pooled effects of geographic access on institutional delivery care use were calculated using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval.

findingsIn this study a total of 31 studies were included. Among these studies, 15 met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analyses, while the remaining 16 were summarized using qualitative synthesis. Studies included in the analysis where women had to walk 60 minutes or less to access a health facility delivery were significantly heterogeneous. Having access to obstetric care facilities within five kilometres was significantly associated with institutional deliveries (pooled OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.82, 2.82). Similarly, a travelling time of 60 minutes or less was significantly associated with higher odds of health facility delivery (pooled OR = 3.30; 95% CI = 1.97, 5.53). Every one-hour and one-kilometre increase in travel time and distance, respectively, was negatively associated with institutional delivery care use.

interpretationGeographic access measured in either physical distance and/or travel time was significantly associated with women's use of facility delivery. The greater the distance and/or travel time to obstetric care facilities, the greater the barrier and the lesser the service uptake.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricHealth Services AccessibilityMaternal Health ServicesPatient Acceptance of Health CareDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID30161201
PMCPMC6117044

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.