Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30340602›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Implementation project of the non-pneumatic anti-shock garment and m-communication to enhance maternal health care in rural Tanzania.

Godfrey Mbaruku, Michelle Skaer Therrien, Robert Tillya, Selemani Mbuyita, Zacharia Mtema, Iddajovana Kinyonge, Ritha Godfrey, Silas Temu, Suellen Miller

Open access · goldAbstract 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 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. FIGO recommendations on the management of postpartum hemorrhage 2022.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Godfrey MbarukuIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Michelle Skaer TherrienUniversity of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Safe Motherhood Program, California, USA.
Robert TillyaIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Selemani MbuyitaIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. smbuyita@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2113-6137
Zacharia MtemaIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Iddajovana KinyongeIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Ritha GodfreyIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Silas TemuIfakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Suellen MillerUniversity of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Safe Motherhood Program, California, USA.
Ifakara Health Institute · TZUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Comic Relief (GB) 394573ELMA Foundation 14F0019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObstetric hemorrhage (OH) remains one of the leading causes of maternal mortality, particularly in rural Africa. Tanzania has a high maternal mortality ratio, and approximately 80% of the population accesses health care lower level facilities, unable to provide Comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care (CEmOC). The non-pneumatic anti-shock garment (NASG) has been demonstrated to reduce mortality as it buys time for women in shock to be transported to or to overcome delays at referral facilities.

methodsThis report describes one component of an ongoing maternal health improvement project, Empower, implemented in 280 facilities in four regions in rural Tanzania. The NASG along with a Closed User Group (CUG) mobile phone network were implemented within the overall EmOC project. Simulation trainings, repeated trainings, and close hands-on supportive supervision via site visits and via the CUG network were the training/learning methods. Data collection was conducted via the CUG network, with a limited data collection form, which also included free text options for project improvement. One-to-one interviews were also conducted. Outcome Indicators included appropriate use of NASG for women with hypovolemic shock We also compared baseline case fatality rates (CFR) from OH with endline CFRs. Data were analyzed using cohort study Risk Ratio (RR). Qualitative data analysis was conducted by content analysis.

resultsOf the 1713 women with OH, 419 (24.5%) met project hypovolemic shock criteria, the NASG was applied to 70.8% (n = 297), indicating high acceptability and utilization. CFR at baseline (1.70) compared to CFR at endline (0.76) showed a temporal association of a 67% reduced risk for women during the project period (RR: 0.33, 95% CI = .19, .60). Qualitative feedback was used to make course corrections during the project to enhance training and implementation.

conclusionsThis implementation project with 280 facilities and over 1000 providers supported via CUG demonstrated that NASG can have high uptake and appropriate use for hypovolemic shock secondary to OH. With the proper implementation strategies, NASG utilization can be high and should be associated with decreased mortality among mothers at risk of death from obstetric hemorrhage.

Indexed as

Maternal HealthMaternal Health ServicesAdultClothingEmergency TreatmentFemaleHumansMaternal MortalityPostpartum HemorrhagePregnancyShockTanzania

Identifiers

PMID30340602
PMCPMC6194579
OpenAlexW2897420002

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.