Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31382989›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2019

Expert perspectives on essential parameters to monitor during childbirth in low resource settings: a Delphi study in sub-Saharan Africa.

Michael S Balikuddembe, Nazarius M Tumwesigye, Peter K Wakholi, Thorkild Tylleskär

Abstract 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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.

Michael S BalikuddembeCentre for International Health, University of Bergen, P O Box 7800, 5020, Bergen, Norway. balikuddembem@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6391-203X
Nazarius M TumwesigyeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Makerere University School of Public Health, P O Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda.
Peter K WakholiCollege of Computing and Information Science, Makerere University Kampala, P O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Thorkild TylleskärCentre for International Health, University of Bergen, P O Box 7800, 5020, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is no consensus on the essential parameters to monitor during childbirth, when to start, and the rate of monitoring them. User disagreement contributes to inconsistent use of the twelve-item modified World Health Organization partograph that is started when the cervix is at least 4 cm dilated. The inconsistent use is associated with poor outcomes at birth. Our objective was to identify the perspectives of childbirth experts on what and when to routinely monitor during childbirth in low resource settings as we develop a more acceptable childbirth clinical decision support tool.

methodWe carried out a Delphi study with two survey rounds in early 2018. The online questionnaire covered the partograph items like foetal heart, cervical dilation, and blood pressure, and their monitoring rates. We invited panellists with experience of childbirth care in sub-Saharan Africa. Consensus was pre-set at 70% panellists rating a parameter and we gathered some qualitative reasons for choices.

resultsWe analysed responses of 76 experts from 13 countries. There was consensus on six important parameters including foetal heart rate, amniotic fluid clearness, cervical dilation, strength of uterine contractions, maternal pulse, and blood pressure. Two in three experts expressed support for changing the monitoring intervals for some parameters in the partograph. 63% experts would raise the partograph starting point while 58% would remove some items from it. Consensus was reached on monitoring the cervical dilation at 4-hourly intervals and there was agreement on monitoring the foetal heart rate one-hourly. However, other parameters only showed majority intervals and without reaching agreement scores. The suggested intervals were two-hourly for strength of uterine contractions, and four-hourly for amniotic fluid thickness, maternal pulse and blood pressure. The commonest reason for their opinions was the more demanding working conditions.

conclusionThere was agreement on six partograph items being essential for routine monitoring at birth, but the frequency of monitoring could be changed. To increase acceptability, revisions to birth monitoring guidelines have to be made in consideration of opinions and working conditions of several childbirth experts in low resource settings.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueMonitoring, PhysiologicAdultAfrica South of the SaharaDelivery, ObstetricFemaleGuidelines as TopicHealth ResourcesHumansMiddle AgedParturitionPregnancyChildbirth monitoringConsensusDelphi studyExpert opinionsPartograph

Identifiers

PMID31382989
PMCPMC6683469

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.