Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32887669›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2020

Implementation and evaluation of nonclinical interventions for appropriate use of cesarean section in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a multisite hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial.

Alexandre Dumont, Ana Pilar Betrán, Charles Kaboré, Myriam de Loenzien, Pisake Lumbiganon, Meghan A Bohren, Quoc Nhu Hung Mac, Newton Opiyo, Guillermo Carroli, Kristi Sidney Annerstedt and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Alexandre DumontCEPED, Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, IRD-Université de Paris, ERL INSERM SAGESUD, Paris, France. alexandre.dumont@ird.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3826-0193
Ana Pilar BetránUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Charles KaboréInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Myriam de LoenzienCEPED, Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, IRD-Université de Paris, ERL INSERM SAGESUD, Paris, France.
Pisake LumbiganonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Meghan A BohrenUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Quoc Nhu Hung MacPham Ngoc Thach University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Newton OpiyoUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Guillermo CarroliCentro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina.
Kristi Sidney AnnerstedtDepartment of Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Valéry RiddeCEPED, Institute for Research on Sustainable Development, IRD-Université de Paris, ERL INSERM SAGESUD, Paris, France.
Ramón EscurietFundacio Blanquerna, Barcelona, Spain.
Michael RobsonUniversity College Dublin, National University of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Claudia HansonDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
QUALI-DEC research group

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile cesarean sections (CSs) are a life-saving intervention, an increasing number are performed without medical reasons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unnecessary CS diverts scarce resources and thereby reduces access to healthcare for women in need. Argentina, Burkina Faso, Thailand, and Vietnam are committed to reducing unnecessary CS, but many individual and organizational factors in healthcare facilities obstruct this aim. Nonclinical interventions can overcome these barriers by helping providers improve their practices and supporting women's decision-making regarding childbirth. Existing evidence has shown only a modest effect of single interventions on reducing CS rates, arguably because of the failure to design multifaceted interventions effectively tailored to the context. The aim of this study is to design, adapt, and test a multifaceted intervention for the appropriate use of CS in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Thailand, and Vietnam.

methodsWe designed an intervention (QUALIty DECision-making-QUALI-DEC) with four components: (1) opinion leaders at heathcare facilities to improve adherence to best practices among clinicians, (2) CS audits and feedback to help providers identify potentially avoidable CS, (3) a decision analysis tool to help women make an informed decision on the mode of birth, and (4) companionship to support women during labor. QUALI-DEC will be implemented and evaluated in 32 hospitals (8 sites per country) using a pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation design to test our implementation strategy, and information regarding its impact on relevant maternal and perinatal outcomes will be gathered. The implementation strategy will involve the participation of women, healthcare professionals, and organizations and account for the local environment, needs, resources, and social factors in each country. DISCUSSION: There is urgent need for interventions and implementation strategies to optimize the use of CS while improving health outcomes and satisfaction in LMICs. This can only be achieved by engaging all stakeholders involved in the decision-making process surrounding birth and addressing their needs and concerns. The study will generate robust evidence about the effectiveness and the impact of this multifaceted intervention. It will also assess the acceptability and scalability of the intervention and the capacity for empowerment among women and providers alike.

trial registrationISRCTN67214403.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionDeveloping CountriesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornParturitionPovertyPregnancyHealthcare organizationLow- and middle-income countriesNonclinical interventionQuality of careShared decision-makingUnnecessary cesarean section

Identifiers

PMID32887669
PMCPMC7650262

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.