ArticleBMJ open2019
How well do mothers recall their own and their infants' perinatal events? A two-district study using cross-sectional stratified random sampling in Bihar, India.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGlobal monitoring of maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) programmes use self-reported data subject to recall error which may lead to incorrect decisions for improving health services and wasted resources. To minimise this risk, samples of mothers of infants aged 0-2 and 3-5 months are sometimes used. We test whether a single sample of mothers of infants aged 0-5 months provides the same information.
designAn annual MNCH household survey in two districts of Bihar, India (n=6 million).
participantsIndependent samples (n=475 each) of mothers of infants aged 0-5, 0-2 and 3-5 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main analyses compare responses from the samples of infants aged 0-5 and 0-2 months with Mantel-Haenszel-Cochran statistics using 51 indicators in two districts.
resultsNo measurable differences are detected in 79.4% (81/102) comparisons; 20.6% (21/102) display differences for the main comparison. Subanalyses produce similar results. A difference detected for exclusive breast feeding is due to premature complementary feeding by older infants. Measurable differences are detected in 33% (8/24) of the indicators on Front Line Worker (FLW) support, 26.9% (7/26) of indicators of birth preparedness and place of birth and attendant, and 9.5% (4/42) of the indicators on neonatal and antenatal care.
conclusionsDifferences in FLW visits and compliance with their advice may be due to seasonal effects: mothers of older infants aged 3-5 months were pregnant during the dry season; mothers of infants aged 0-2 months were pregnant during the monsoons, making transportation difficult. Useful coverage estimates can be obtained by sampling mothers with infants aged 0-5 months as with two samples suggesting that mothers of young infants recall their own perinatal events and those of their children. For some indicators (eg, exclusive breast feeding), it may be necessary to adjust targets. Excessive stratification wastes resources, does not improve the quality of information and increases the burden placed on data collectors and communities which can increase non-sampling error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.