Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31874937›Full record

ArticleGlobal health, science and practice2019

Effectiveness of an Electronic Partogram: A Mixed-Method, Quasi-Experimental Study Among Skilled Birth Attendants in Kenya.

Harshadkumar Sanghvi, Diwakar Mohan, Lindsay Litwin, Eva Bazant, Patricia Gomez, Tara MacDowell, Levis Onsase, Valentino Wabwile, Charles Waka, Zahida Qureshi and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health, science and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Harshadkumar SanghviJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Diwakar MohanJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Lindsay LitwinJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Eva BazantJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Patricia GomezJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA. patricia.gomez@jhpiego.org.
Tara MacDowellJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Levis OnsaseJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Valentino WabwileJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Charles WakaJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Zahida QureshiUniversity of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Eunice OmangaJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Anthony GichangiJhpiego, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ruth MuiaKenya Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Johns Hopkins University · USMinistry of Health · KEUniversity of Nairobi · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely identification and management of intrapartum complications could significantly reduce maternal deaths, intrapartum stillbirths, and newborn deaths due to hypoxia. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies monitoring of labor using the paper partograph as a high-priority intervention for identifying abnormities in labor and fetal well-being. This article describes a mixed-method, quasi-experimental study to assess the effectiveness of an Android tablet-based electronic, labor clinical decision-support application (ePartogram) in limited-resource settings.

methodsThe study, conducted in Kenya from October 2016 to May 2017, allocated 12 hospitals and health centers to an intervention (ePartogram) or comparison (paper partograph) group. Skilled birth attendants (SBAs) in both groups received a 2-day refresher training in labor management and partograph use. The intervention group received an additional 1-day orientation on use and care of the Android-based ePartogram app. All outcomes except one compare post-ePartogram intervention versus paper partograph controls. The exception is outcome of early perinatal mortality pre- and post-ePartogram introduction in intervention sites compared to control sites. We used log binomial regression to analyze the primary outcome of the study, suboptimal fetal outcomes. We also analyzed for secondary outcomes (SBAs performing recommended actions), and conducted in-depth interviews with facility in-charges and SBAs to ascertain acceptability and adoptability of the ePartogram.

resultsWe compared data from 842 clients in active labor using ePartograms with data from 1,042 clients monitored using a paper partograph. SBAs using ePartograms were more likely than those using paper partographs to take action to maintain normal labor, such as ambulation, feeding, and fluid intake, and to address abnormal measurements of fetal well-being (14.7% versus 5.3%, adjusted relative risk=4.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.95-8.19). Use of the ePartogram was associated with a 56% (95% CI=27%-73%) lower likelihood of suboptimal fetal outcomes than the paper partograph. Users of the ePartogram were more likely to be compliant with routine labor observations. SBAs stated that the technology was easy to use but raised concerns about its use at high-volume sites. Further research is needed to evaluate costs and benefit and to incorporate recent WHO guidance on labor management.

conclusionePartogram use was associated with improvements in adherence to recommendations for routine labor care and a reduction in adverse fetal outcomes, with providers reporting adoptability without undue effort. Continued development of the ePartogram, including incorporating new clinical rules from the 2018 WHO recommendations on intrapartum care, will improve labor monitoring and quality care at all health system levels.

Indexed as

Computers, HandheldDecision Support Systems, ClinicalLabor, ObstetricAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleFetal MonitoringHumansHypoxiaInfant, NewbornKenyaMidwiferyPerinatal CarePregnancyRegression AnalysisYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31874937
PMCPMC6927834
OpenAlexW2997714738

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.