Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31640770›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2019

The power of peers: an effectiveness evaluation of a cluster-controlled trial of group antenatal care in rural Nepal.

Poshan Thapa, Alex Harsha Bangura, Isha Nirola, David Citrin, Bishal Belbase, Bhawana Bogati, B K Nirmala, Sonu Khadka, Lal Kunwar, Scott Halliday and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
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. It is linked to trial NCT02330887 (Group Antenatal Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02330887 nacompletednot on this map

Group Antenatal Care: The Power of Peers for Increasing Skilled Birth Attendance in Achham, Nepal

TypeinterventionalSponsorPossibleRan2014 to 2016Enrolled2,184ConditionsPrenatal CareArmsGroup Antenatal Care, Individual Antenatal Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 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. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

19 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Poshan ThapaUniversity of New South Wales, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alex Harsha BanguraLakewood Health System, Staples, MN, USA.
Isha NirolaHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
David CitrinNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bishal BelbaseKarma Health, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bhawana BogatiNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
B K NirmalaOm Health Science Campus, Purbanchal University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sonu KhadkaNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Lal KunwarNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Scott HallidayNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nandini ChoudhuryNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Al OzonoffCenter for Patient Safety and Quality Research, Boston Children' Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jasmine TenpaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Ryan SchwarzNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Mukesh AdhikariYale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
S P KalauneeNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sharon RisingGroup Care Global, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Duncan MaruNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sheela MaruNyaya Health Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. sheela@possiblehealth.org.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USHarvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USNational Patient Safety Foundation · USPurbanchal University · NPSidney Kimmel Cancer Center · USStaples (United States) · USUniversity of Washington · USUNSW Sydney · AUYale University · US

Funding

Integrating Pediatric Care Delivery in Rural Healthcare SystemsDP5OD019894 · OD · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI MARU, DUNCAN · 2014 to 2018
$1.8M
Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School N/AMary Horrigan Connors Center for Women's Health & Gender Biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative Global Women's Health FellowshipNIH HHS DP5 OD019894
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing the maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births globally is one of the Sustainable Development Goals. Approximately 830 women die from pregnancy- or childbirth-related complications every day. Almost 99% of these deaths occur in developing countries. Increasing antenatal care quality and completion, and institutional delivery are key strategies to reduce maternal mortality, however there are many implementation challenges in rural and resource-limited settings. In Nepal, 43% of deliveries do not take place in an institution and 31% of women have insufficient antenatal care. Context-specific and evidence-based strategies are needed to improve antenatal care completion and institutional birth. We present an assessment of effectiveness outcomes for an adaptation of a group antenatal care model delivered by community health workers and midwives in close collaboration with government staff in rural Nepal.

methodsThe study was conducted in Achham, Nepal, via a public private partnership between the Nepali non-profit, Nyaya Health Nepal, and the Ministry of Health and Population, with financial and technical assistance from the American non-profit, Possible. We implemented group antenatal care as a prospective non-randomized, cluster-controlled, type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation study in six village clusters. The implementation approach allowed for iterative improvement in design by making changes to improve the quality of the intervention. We evaluated effectiveness through a difference in difference analysis of institutional birth rates between groups prior to implementation of the intervention and 1 year after implementation. Additionally, we assessed the change in knowledge of key danger signs and the acceptability of the group model compared with individual visits in a nested cohort of women receiving home visit care and home visit care plus group antenatal care. Using a directed content and thematic approach, we analyzed qualitative interviews to identify major themes related to implementation.

resultsAt baseline, there were 457 recently-delivered women in the six village clusters receiving home visit care and 214 in the seven village clusters receiving home visit care plus group antenatal care. At endline, there were 336 and 201, respectively. The difference in difference analysis did not show a significant change in institutional birth rates nor antenatal care visit completion rates between the groups. There was, however, a significant increase in both institutional birth and antenatal care completion in each group from baseline to endline. We enrolled a nested cohort of 52 participants receiving home visit care and 62 participants receiving home visit care plus group antenatal care. There was high acceptability of the group antenatal care intervention and home visit care, with no significant differences between groups. A significantly higher percentage of women who participated in group antenatal care found their visits to be 'very enjoyable' (83.9% vs 59.6%, p = 0.0056). In the nested cohort, knowledge of key danger signs during pregnancy significantly improved from baseline to endline in the intervention clusters only (2 to 31%, p < 0.001), while knowledge of key danger signs related to labor and childbirth, the postpartum period, and the newborn did not in either intervention or control groups. Qualitative analysis revealed that women found that the groups provided an opportunity for learning and discussion, and the groups were a source of social support and empowerment. They also reported an improvement in services available at their village clinic. Providers noted the importance of the community health workers in identifying pregnant women in the community and linking them to the village clinics. Challenges in birth planning were brought up by both participants and providers.

conclusionWhile there was no significant change in institutional birth and antenatal care completion at the population level between groups, there was an increase of these outcomes in both groups. This may be secondary to the primary importance of community health worker involvement in both of these groups. Knowledge of key pregnancy danger signs was significantly improved in the home visit plus group antenatal care cohort compared with the home visit care only group. This initial study of Nyaya Health Nepal's adapted group care model demonstrates the potential for impacting women's antenatal care experience and should be studied over a longer period as an intervention embedded within a community health worker program.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02330887 , registered 01/05/2015, retroactively registered.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicAdolescentAdultCommunity Health WorkersDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHumansMaternal Health ServicesMiddle AgedNepalNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicParturitionPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareProspective StudiesRural PopulationCentering pregnancyChild healthGroup antenatal careImplementation researchMaternal healthPeer groupPrenatal care

Identifiers

PMID31640770
PMCPMC6805428
OpenAlexW2981514717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.