Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32594881›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020

Perinatal risk and the cultural ecology of health in Bihar, India.

Cristine H Legare, Santosh Akhauri, Indrajit Chaudhuri, Faiz A Hashmi, Tracy Johnson, Emily E Little, Hannah G Lunkenheimer, Alexandra Mandelbaum, Harsh Mandlik, Sudipta Mondal and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Ritual explained: interdisciplinary answers to Tinbergen's four questions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    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

18 authors.

Cristine H LegareDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Santosh AkhauriProject Concern International, San Diego, CA, USA.
Indrajit ChaudhuriProject Concern International, San Diego, CA, USA.
Faiz A HashmiProject Concern International, San Diego, CA, USA.
Tracy JohnsonBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
Emily E LittleDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Hannah G LunkenheimerDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Alexandra MandelbaumScope, Helsinki, Finland.
Harsh MandlikProject Concern International, San Diego, CA, USA.
Sudipta MondalProject Concern International, San Diego, CA, USA.
Nachiket MorBanyan Academy of Leadership in Mental Health at Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India.
Neela SaldanhaCentre for Social and Behaviour Change, Ashoka University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Janine SchooleyProject Concern International, San Diego, CA, USA.
Priyam ShardaScope, Helsinki, Finland.
Shalini SubbiahScope, Helsinki, Finland.
Siddharta SwarupBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mari TikkanenScope, Helsinki, Finland.
Oskar BurgerDepartment of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI Elizabeth T. Gershoff · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of the current study is to examine the cultural ecology of health associated with mitigating perinatal risk in Bihar, India. We describe the occurrences, objectives and explanations of health-related beliefs and behaviours during pregnancy and postpartum using focus group discussions with younger and older mothers. First, we document perceived physical and supernatural threats and the constellation of traditional and biomedical practises including taboos, superstitions and rituals used to mitigate them. Second, we describe the extent to which these practises are explained as risk-preventing versus health-promoting behaviour. Third, we discuss the extent to which these practises are consistent, inconsistent or unrelated to biomedical health practises and describe the extent to which traditional and biomedical health practises compete, conflict and coexist. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the relationships between traditional and biomedical practises in the context of the cultural ecology of health and reflect on how a comprehensive understanding of perinatal health practises can improve the efficacy of health interventions and improve outcomes. This article is part of the theme issue 'Ritual renaissance: new insights into the most human of behaviours'.

Indexed as

Cultural CharacteristicsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRisk AssessmentFemaleHumansIndiaPerinatal CarePostpartum PeriodPregnancyfolkbiologyIndiamaternal-child healthperinatal healthritualtraditional medicine

Identifiers

PMID32594881
PMCPMC7423251

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.