Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33403105›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2020

Use of a participatory quality assessment and improvement tool for maternal and neonatal hospital care. Part 2: Review of the results of quality cycles and of factors influencing change.

Giorgio Tamburlini, Alberta Bacci, Marina Daniele, Stelian Hodorogea, Dalia Jeckaite, Audrius Maciulevicius, Emanuelle Pessa Valente, Gelmius Siupsinskas, Fabio Uxa, Francesca Vezzini and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

Giorgio TamburliniCentro per la Salute del Bambino, Trieste, Italy.
Alberta BacciInternational perinatal care consultant, Trieste, Italy.
Marina DanieleDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College, London, UK.
Stelian HodorogeaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Chisinau, Moldova.
Dalia JeckaiteInternational midwifery and perinatal care consultant, Panevezys, Lithuania.
Audrius MaciuleviciusNeonatal Unit, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Emanuelle Pessa ValenteInstitute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, WHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Trieste, Italy and Instituto de Medicina Integral Fernando Figueira, Recife, Brazil.
Gelmius SiupsinskasInternational perinatal care consultant, Basel, Switzerland.
Fabio UxaInstitute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, WHO Collaborating Centre for Maternal and Child Health, Trieste, Italy.
Francesca VezziniInstituto de Medicina Integral Fernando Figueira, Recife, Brazil.
Ornella LincettoWHO Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child, Adolescent Health and Ageing, Geneva, Switzerland.
Maurice BucaguWHO Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child, Adolescent Health and Ageing, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation about the use of the findings of quality assessments in maternal and neonatal (MN) care is lacking and the development of tools capable to effectively address quality gaps is a key priority. Furthermore, little is known about factors that act as barriers or facilitators to change at facility level. Based on the extensive experience made with the WHO Quality Assessment and Improvement MN (QA/QI MN) tool, an overview is provided of the improvements in quality of care (QoC) which were obtained over time and of the factors influencing change.

methodsAll documented reports on the implementation of the WHO QA/QI MN tool were searched and screened for inclusion. Reports were considered if bringing evidence from both the baseline assessment and the reassessment. Changes were considered in four domains: maternal care, neonatal care, infrastructure and policies, with reference made to WHO maternal and neonatal care standards. The observed improvements were categorized according to intensity and extent across the sample of health facilities. Factors influencing change were categorized into internal and external and further classified as barriers or facilitators.

resultsChanges were documented after an average period of 1.2 years from first assessment in 27 facilities belonging to 9 different countries in Central and Eastern Europe (3), Central Asia (3), sub-Saharan Africa (2) and Latin America (1). Improvements were observed in all areas of care but were greater and more frequently observed in areas related to appropriate case management and respectful care for both mothers and newborns. Although widespread across most facilities and countries, the observed improvements were not covering all the quality gaps observed at the baseline assessment nor were always sufficient to achieve standard care. Factors facilitating change as well as barriers were mainly related to the capacity of the managers and head of units to involve and motivate their staff members.

conclusionsThe use of WHO QA/QI MN tool proved effective in promoting significant changes in quality of care. The review of observed improvements and of factors influencing change at facility level shows that participatory assessment tools that promote a constructive dialogue with hospital managers and staff and support them in acquiring capacity in this role are crucial to implement effective quality cycles.

Indexed as

Child Health ServicesMaternal Health ServicesQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality ImprovementAfrica South of the SaharaAsiaEuropeFemaleHospitalsHumansInfant, NewbornLatin AmericaPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID33403105
PMCPMC7750017

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.