ArticleJournal of global health2018
Why some mothers overestimate birth size and length of pregnancy in rural Nepal.
Article in Journal of global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Birthweight data completeness and quality in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.Population health metrics · 2021Article
- What caused neonatal deaths in Senegal in 2017? a secondary analysis of 2017 DHS.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Article
- What is meant by validity in maternal and newborn health measurement? A conceptual framework for understanding indicator validation.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative validation studies alone may not be able to distinguish between instances when participants did not accurately report an event vs when participants did not understand a question. We used an explanatory qualitative study design to acquire an in-depth understanding of why some mothers in rural Nepal overestimate birth size of their newborn and their length of pregnancy.
methodsWe conducted two focus group discussions (FGDs) with study staff who administered a quantitative questionnaire and 12 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with mothers who had participated in a quantitative validation study. Transcripts were coded and analyzed for themes in patterns of meaning within and across FGDs and IDIs. Using this thematic map, we synthesized our data into common and divergent responses from participants to facilitate our interpretation of the quantitative findings.
resultsWe identified five themes specific to this analysis: difficulties with the length of pregnancy question, challenges in administering the birth size question, the perceived effect of time since birth on mothers' ability to remember information, the language and style differences specific to this setting, and the study context shaping the relationship between study staff and mothers who participated and how this may have influenced mothers' responses. Visual aids may help to scale the question about birth size within a cultural frame of reference for maternal reports to be more interpretable. Among both study staff and mothers, a longer period of time since the birth of a child was thought to be associated with diminished accuracy of maternal reports, a perception not supported by our previously published quantitative findings.
conclusionsPoor validity of low birth weight (LBW) and preterm birth indicators based on maternal reports may be partly attributed to challenges in maternal understanding of questions assessing birth size and length of pregnancy. Additional research is needed to confirm these findings regarding maternal comprehension and to further evaluate the utility of visual aids developed for this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.