Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30674323›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2019

An investigation into mistreatment of women during labour and childbirth in maternity care facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India: a mixed methods study.

Gaurav Sharma, Loveday Penn-Kekana, Kaveri Halder, Véronique Filippi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
27.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gaurav SharmaDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC 1E 7HT, UK. drsharmag@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8951-3245
Loveday Penn-KekanaDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, WC 1E 7HT, UK.
Kaveri HalderDeputy Manager-Research, Sambodhi Research and Communications, O-2, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, 110024, India.
Véronique FilippiDeputy Manager-Research, Sambodhi Research and Communications, O-2, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, 110024, India.
Sambodhi Research and Communications · INLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the nature and context of mistreatment during labour and childbirth at public and private sector maternity facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India.

methodsThis study analyses mixed-methods data obtained through systematic clinical observations and open-ended comments recorded by the observers to describe care provision for 275 mothers and their newborns at 26 hospitals in three districts of Uttar Pradesh from 26 May to 8 July 2015. We conducted a bivariate descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and used a thematic approach to analyse qualitative data.

findingsAll women in the study encountered at least one indicator of mistreatment. There was a high prevalence of not offering birthing position choice (92%) and routine manual exploration of the uterus (80%) in facilities in both sectors. Private sector facilities performed worse than the public sector for not allowing birth companions (p = 0.02) and for perineal shaving (p = < 0.001), whereas the public sector performed worse for not ensuring adequate privacy (p = < 0.001), not informing women prior to a vaginal examination (p = 0.01) and for physical violence (p = 0.04). Prepared comments by observers provide further contextual insights into the quantitative data, and additional themes of mistreatment, such as deficiencies in infection prevention, lack of analgesia for episiotomy, informal payments and poor hygiene standards at maternity facilities were identified.

conclusionsMistreatment of women frequently occurs in both private and public sector facilities. This paper contributes to the literature on mistreatment of women during labour and childbirth at maternity facilities in India by articulating new constructs of overtreatment and under-treatment. There are five key implications of this study. First, a systematic and context-specific effort to measure mistreatment in public and private sector facilities in high burden states in India is required. Second, a training initiative to orient all maternity care personnel to the principles of respectful maternity care would be useful. Third, innovative mechanisms to improve accountability towards respectful maternity care are required. Fourth, participatory community and health system interventions to support respectful maternity care would be useful. Lastly, we note that there needs to be a long-term, sustained investment in health systems so that supportive and enabling work-environments are available to front- line health workers.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansIndiaMaternal Health ServicesPhysical AbusePregnancyProfessional-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareRespectAbuseChildbirthDisrespectIndiaLabourMaternalMistreatmentNewbornQuality

Identifiers

PMID30674323
PMCPMC6345007
OpenAlexW2925252914

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.