Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30601847›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Effectiveness of home-based records on maternal, newborn and child health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Olivia Magwood, Victoire Kpadé, Kednapa Thavorn, Sandy Oliver, Alain D Mayhew, Kevin Pottie

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Effects of a Personal Health Record in Maternity Care: A Stepped-Wedge Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Patients', carers' and healthcare providers' views of patient-held health records in Kerala, India: A qualitative exploratory study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olivia MagwoodC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Victoire KpadéC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kednapa ThavornOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4738-8447
Sandy OliverDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, London, United Kingdom.
Alain D MayhewC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Kevin PottieC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Home-based records (HBRs) may improve the health of pregnant women, new mothers and their children, and support health care systems. We assessed the effectiveness of HBRs on maternal, newborn and child health reporting, care seeking and self-care practice, mortality, morbidity and women's empowerment in low-, middle- and high-income countries. We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Health Systems Evidence, CINAHL, HTA database, NHS EED, and DARE from 1950 to 2017. We also searched the WHO, CDC, ECDC, JICA and UNAIDS. We included randomised controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, and cost-effectiveness studies. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to appraise studies. We extracted and analyzed data for outcomes including maternal, newborn and child health, and women's empowerment. We synthesized and presented data using GRADE Evidence Profiles. We included 14 studies out of 16,419 identified articles. HBRs improved antenatal care and reduced likelihood of pregnancy complications; improved patient-provider communication and enhanced women's feelings of control and empowerment; and improved rates of vaccination among children (OR: 2·39, 95% CI: 1.45-3·92) and mothers (OR 1·98 95% CI:1·29-3·04). A three-year follow-up shows that HBRs reduced risk of cognitive delay in children (p = 0.007). HBRs used during the life cycle of women and children in Indonesia showed benefits for continuity of care. There were no significant effects on healthy pregnancy behaviors such as smoking and consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. There were no statistically significant effects on newborn health outcomes. We did not identify any formal studies on cost or economic evaluation. HBRs show modest but important health effects for women and children. These effects with minimal-to-no harms, multiplied across a population, could play an important role in reducing health inequities in maternal, newborn, and child health.

Indexed as

Child HealthHealth Records, PersonalInfant HealthMaternal HealthChildFemaleHumansIndonesiaInfant, NewbornOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Generated Health DataPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPrenatal Care

Identifiers

PMID30601847
PMCPMC6314587

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.