Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31083696›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Adherence to standards of first-visit antenatal care among providers: A stratified analysis of Tanzanian facility-based survey for improving quality of antenatal care.

Deogratius Bintabara, Keiko Nakamura, Julius Ntwenya, Kaoruko Seino, Bonaventura C T Mpondo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Deogratius BintabaraDepartment of Global Health Entrepreneurship, Division of Public Health, Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Keiko NakamuraDepartment of Global Health Entrepreneurship, Division of Public Health, Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9119-4730
Julius NtwenyaDepartment of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, The University of Dodoma, Dodoma, Tanzania.
Kaoruko SeinoDepartment of Global Health Entrepreneurship, Division of Public Health, Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.
Bonaventura C T MpondoDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Health Sciences, The University of Dodoma, Dodoma, Tanzania.
Tokyo Medical and Dental University · JPThe University of Dodoma · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the benefits of early antenatal care visits for early prevention, detection, and treatment of potential complications in pregnancy, a high level of provider adherence to first-visit antenatal care standards is needed. However, little information is available regarding provider adherence to antenatal care in Tanzania. This study was performed to assess provider adherence to first-visit antenatal care standards and to apply stratified analysis to identify associated factors in Tanzania.

methodsData from the 2014-2015 Tanzania Service Provision Assessment Survey were used in this study. Provider adherence to first-visit antenatal care standards was measured using 10 domains: client history; aspects of prior pregnancies; danger signs of the current pregnancy; physical examination; routine tests; HIV testing and counseling; maintaining a healthy pregnancy; iron/folate supplements; tetanus toxoid vaccination, and preparation for delivery. A composite score was then created in which the highest quantile (corresponding to ≥60.5%) considered to provider adhering to first-visit antenatal care standards. Initially, a series of unadjusted logistic regression analyses according to the type of facility and managing authority were performed separately at each level (i.e., facility, provider, and client). Thereafter, all variables with P < 0.2 were fitted into the respective stratified multivariable logistic regression analysis using a 5% significance level.

resultsA total of 1756 first-visit antenatal care consultations performed by 822 providers in 648 health facilities were analyzed. The overall median [Interquartile range, IQR] adherence to first-visit antenatal care was relatively low at 47.1% [35.7%-60.5%]. After adjusting for selected variables from each level in specific strata, at dispensary; female providers [AOR = 5.5; 95% CI, 1.8-16.4], at health centre; performance of quality assurance [AOR = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9], at hospital; availability of routine tests [AOR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.8] and basic medicine [AOR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.7], at public facilities; availability of medicine [AOR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.2] and receiving refresher training [AOR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1], and at private facility; receiving external fund from government [AOR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.4] were significantly associated with better adherence to first-visit antenatal care standards.

conclusionsThe study highlighted the important factors, including the provision of refresher training, regular distribution of basic medicines, and diagnostics equipment which may influence provider adherence to first-visit ANC standards.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHealth PersonnelHumansLogistic ModelsMalePregnancyPrenatal CareTanzaniaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31083696
PMCPMC6513091
OpenAlexW2944892365

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.