Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32209080›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Evaluating the quality and coverage of post-abortion care in Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional study with a census of health facilities.

Taylor Riley, Mugove G Madziyire, Onikepe Owolabi, Elizabeth A Sully, Tsungai Chipato

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 2 countries.

Taylor RileyGuttmacher Institute, 125 Maiden Lane Suite 7, New York, NY, 10038, USA. triley@guttmacher.org.
Mugove G MadziyireClinical Trials Research Centre (UZCHS-CTRC), University of Zimbabwe College of Health Science, 15 Phillips Road, Belgravia, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Onikepe OwolabiGuttmacher Institute, 125 Maiden Lane Suite 7, New York, NY, 10038, USA.
Elizabeth A SullyGuttmacher Institute, 125 Maiden Lane Suite 7, New York, NY, 10038, USA.
Tsungai ChipatoClinical Trials Research Centre (UZCHS-CTRC), University of Zimbabwe College of Health Science, 15 Phillips Road, Belgravia, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Guttmacher Institute · USUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn estimated 65,000 abortions occurred in Zimbabwe in 2016, and 40 % resulted in complications that required treatment. Quality post-abortion care (PAC) services are essential to treat abortion complications and prevent future unintended pregnancies, and there have been recent national efforts to improve PAC provision. This study evaluates two components of quality of care: structural quality, using PAC signal functions, a monitoring framework of key life-saving interventions that treat abortion complications; and process quality, which examines the standards of care provided to PAC patients.

methodsWe utilized a 2016 national census of health facilities in Zimbabwe with PAC capacity (n = 227) and a prospective, facility-based 28-day survey of women seeking PAC in a nationally representative sample of those facilities (n = 1002 PAC patients at 127 facilities). PAC signal functions, which are the critical services in the management of abortion complications, were used to classify facilities as having the capability to provide basic or comprehensive care. All facilities were expected to provide basic care, and referral-level facilities were designed to provide comprehensive care. We also assessed population coverage of PAC services based on the WHO recommendation for obstetric services of 5 facilities per 500,000 residents.

resultsWe found critical gaps in the availability of PAC services; only 21% of facilities had basic PAC capability and 10% of referral facilities had comprehensive capability. For process quality, only one-fourth (25%) of PAC patients were treated with the appropriate medical procedure. The health system had only 41% of the basic PAC facilities recommended for the needs of Zimbabwe's population, and 55% of the recommended comprehensive PAC facilities.

conclusionThis is the first national assessment of the Zimbabwean health system's coverage and quality of PAC services. These findings highlight the large gaps in the availability and distribution of facilities with basic and comprehensive PAC capability. These structural gaps are a contributing barrier to the provision of evidence-based care. This study shows the need for increased focus and investment in expanding the provision of and improving the quality of these essential, life-saving PAC services.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityQuality of Health CareAbortion, InducedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth FacilitiesHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesZimbabweAbortion complicationsHealth systemPost-abortion careQuality of careSignal functions

Identifiers

PMID32209080
PMCPMC7092428
OpenAlexW3014053304

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.