ArticlePloS one2020
Evaluation of a health promotion intervention associated with birthing centres in rural Nepal.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBirthing centres (BC) in Nepal are mostly situated in rural areas and provide care for women without complications. However, they are often bypassed by women and their role in providing good quality maternity services is overlooked. This study evaluated an intervention to increase access and utilisation of perinatal care facilities in community settings.
methodsThis longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted over five years in four villages in Nepal and included two BCs. An intervention was conducted in 2014-2016 that involved supporting the BCs and conducting a health promotion programme with local women. Population-based multi-stage sampling of women of reproductive age with a child below 24 months of age was undertaken. Household surveys were conducted (2012 and 2017) employing trained enumerators and using a structured validated questionnaire. The collected data were entered into SPSS and analysed comparing pre- and post-intervention surveys.
resultsThe intervention was associated with an increase in uptake in facility birth, with an increase in utilisation of perinatal services available from BCs. The post-intervention survey provided evidence that women were more likely to give birth at primary care facilities (OR 5.60, p-value <0.001) than prior to the intervention. Similarly, the likelihood of giving birth at a health facility increased if decision for birthplace was made jointly by women and family members for primary care facilities (OR 1.76, p-value 0.023) and hospitals/tertiary care facilities (OR 1.78, p-value 0.020. If women had less than four ANC visits, then they were less likely to give birth at primary care facilities (OR 0.39, p-value <0.001) or hospitals/tertiary care facilities (OR 0.63, p-value 0.014). Finally, women were less likely to give birth at primary care facilities if they had only primary level of education (OR 0.49, p-value 0.014).
conclusionBCs have the potential to increase the births at health facilities and decrease home births if their services are promoted by the local health promoters. In addition, socio-economic factors including women's education, the level of women's autonomy and having four or more ANC visits affect the utilisation of perinatal services at the health facility.
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.