Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30566511›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Health workers' experiences of collaborative quality improvement for maternal and newborn care in rural Tanzanian health facilities: A process evaluation using the integrated 'Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services' framework.

Ulrika Baker, Arafumin Petro, Tanya Marchant, Stefan Peterson, Fatuma Manzi, Anna Bergström, Claudia Hanson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Ulrika BakerDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi.ORCID 0000-0003-4011-8217
Arafumin PetroIfakara Health Institute, Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy (HSIEP), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Tanya MarchantDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, United Kingdom.
Stefan PetersonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Global Health-Health Systems and Policy Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fatuma ManziIfakara Health Institute, Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy (HSIEP), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Anna BergströmDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, International Maternal and Child Health (IMCH), Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Claudia HansonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Global Health-Health Systems and Policy Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ifakara Health Institute · TZKarolinska Institutet · SELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUnited Nations Children's Fund · USUniversity of Malawi · MWUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality Improvement (QI) approaches are increasingly used to bridge the quality gap in maternal and newborn care (MNC) in Sub Saharan Africa. Health workers typically serve as both recipients and implementers of QI activities; their understanding, motivation, and level of involvement largely determining the potential effect. In support of efforts to harmonise and integrate the various QI approaches implemented in parallel in Tanzanian health facilities, our objective was to investigate how different components of a collaborative QI intervention were understood and experienced by health workers, and therefore contributed positively to its mechanisms of effect. MATERIALS AND

methodsA qualitative process evaluation of a collaborative QI intervention for MNC in rural Tanzania was carried out. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 health workers in 13 purposively sampled health facilities. A deductive theory-driven qualitative content analysis was employed using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health services (i-PARIHS) framework as a lens with its four constructs innovation, recipients, facilitation, and context as guiding themes.

resultsHealth workers valued the high degree of fit between QI topics and their everyday practice and appreciated the intervention's comprehensive approach. The use of run-charts to monitor progress was well understood and experienced as motivating. The importance and positive experience of on-site mentoring and coaching visits to individual health facilities was expressed by the majority of health workers. Many described the parallel implementation of various health programs as a challenge.

conclusionComponents of QI approaches that are well understood and experienced as supportive by health workers in everyday practice may enhance mechanisms of effect and result in more significant change. A focus on such components may also guide harmonisation, to avoid duplication and the implementation of parallel programs, and country ownership of QI approaches in resource limited settings.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesQuality ImprovementAttitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorHealth FacilitiesHealth PersonnelHumansLearningMentoringQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareRural PopulationTanzania

Identifiers

PMID30566511
PMCPMC6300247
OpenAlexW2905506504

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.