Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33040697›Full record

ReviewGlobal health action2020

Utility of the three-delays model and its potential for supporting a solution-based approach to accessing intrapartum care in low- and middle-income countries. A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Valentina Actis Danna, Carol Bedwell, Sabina Wakasiaka, Tina Lavender

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health action, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Valentina Actis DannaDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2476-1659
Carol BedwellDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8031-7793
Sabina WakasiakaCollege of Health Science, School of Nursing, University of Nairobi , Nairobi, Kenya.
Tina LavenderDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine , Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1473-4956

Funding

Department of Health 16/137/53
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 3-Delays Model has helped in the identification of access barriers to obstetric care in low and middle-income countries by highlighting the responsibilities at household, community and health system levels. Critiques of the Model include its one-dimensionality and its limited utility in triggering preventative interventions. Such limitations have prompted a review of the evidence to establish the usefulness of the Model in optimising timely access to intrapartum care.

objectiveTo determine the current utility of the 3-Delays Model and its potential for supporting a solution-based approach to accessing intrapartum care.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis across several databases and included qualitative findings from stand-alone studies, mixed-methods research and literature reviews using the Model to present their findings. Papers published between 1994 and 2019 were included with no language restrictions. Twenty-seven studies were quality appraised. Qualitative accounts were analysed using the 'best-fit framework approach'.

resultsThis synthesis included twenty-five studies conducted in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Five studies adhered to the original 3-Delays Model's structure by identifying the same factors responsible for the delays. The remaining studies proposed modifications to the Model including alterations of the delay's definition, adding of new factors explaining the delays, and inclusion of a fourth delay. Only two studies reported women's individual contributions to the delays. All studies applied the Model retrospectively, thus adopting a problem-identification approach.

conclusionThis synthesis unveils the need for an individual perspective, for prospective identification of potential issues. This has resulted in the development of a new framework, the Women's Health Empowerment Model, incorporating the 3 delays. As a basis for discussion at every pregnancy, this framework promotes a solution-based approach to childbirth, which could prevent delays and support women's empowerment during pregnancy and childbirth.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesGlobal HealthDelivery, ObstetricEmpowermentFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaternal Health ServicesModels, TheoreticalPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSocioeconomic Factorschildbirthhealth empowermentindividualised-careMaternal careobstetric carequalitative evidence synthesisthree delays model

Identifiers

PMID33040697
PMCPMC7580724

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.