Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32917163›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

"I can guess the month … but beyond that, I can't tell" an exploratory qualitative study of health care provider perspectives on gestational age estimation in Rajasthan, India.

K Scott, S Gupta, E Williams, M Arthur, U V Somayajulu, L Noguchi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.2field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

K ScottUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA. kscott26@jhu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3597-9637
S GuptaUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
E WilliamsUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Jhpiego, Baltimore, USA.
M ArthurUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/USAID, Washington, D.C., USA.
U V SomayajuluSigma, Delhi, India.
L NoguchiUSAID's Maternal and Child Survival Program/Jhpiego, Baltimore, USA.
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs · USJohns Hopkins University · USUnited States Agency for International Development · US

Funding

United States Agency for International Development aid-oaa-a-14-00028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurately estimating gestational age is essential to the provision of time-sensitive maternal and neonatal interventions, including lifesaving measures for imminent preterm birth and trimester-specific health messaging.

methodsWe explored healthcare provider perspectives on gestational age estimation in the state of Rajasthan, India, including the methods they use (last menstrual period [LMP] dating, ultrasound, or fundal height measurement); barriers to making accurate estimates; how gestational age estimates are documented and used for clinical decision-making; and what could help improve the accuracy and use of these estimates. We interviewed 20 frontline healthcare providers and 10 key informants. Thematic network analysis guided our coding and synthesis of findings.

resultsHealth care providers reported that they determined gestational age using some combination of LMP, fundal height, and ultrasound. Their description of their practices showed a lack of standard protocol, varying levels of confidence in their capacity to make accurate estimates, and differing strategies for managing inconsistencies between estimates derived from different methods. Many frontline healthcare providers valued gestational age estimation more to help women prepare for childbirth than as a tool for clinical decision making. Feedback on accuracy was rare. The providers sampled could not offer ultrasound directly, and instead could only refer women to ultrasound at higher level facilities, and usually only in the second or third trimesters because of late antenatal care-seeking. Low recall among pregnant women limited the accuracy of LMP. Fundal height was heavily relied upon, despite its lack of precision.

conclusionThe accuracy of gestational age estimates is influenced by factors at four levels: 1. health system (protocols to guide frontline workers, interventions that make use of gestational age, work environment, and equipment); 2. healthcare provider (technical understanding of and capacity to apply the gestational age estimation methods, communication and rapport with clients, and value assessment of gestational age); 3. client (time of first antenatal care, migration status, language, education, cognitive approach to recalling dates, and experience with biomedical services); and, 4. the inherent limitations and ease of application of the methods themselves.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGestational AgeFemaleHumansIndiaPregnancyQualitative ResearchStatistics as TopicAntenatal careClient-provider relationshipsGestational age estimationIndiaNeonatal healthPreterm birthQualitativeQuality of careUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID32917163
PMCPMC7488485
OpenAlexW3085808996

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.