Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33637065›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2021

Awareness of obstetric danger signs among pregnant women in the Democratic Republic of Congo: evidence from a nationwide cross-sectional study.

Dalau Mukadi Nkamba, Gilbert Wembodinga, Pierre Bernard, John Ditekemena, Annie Robert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 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. Article
  11. Knowledge of Obstetric Danger Signs among Pregnant Women in the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

5 authors.

Dalau Mukadi NkambaKinshasa School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. dkanba@yahoo.fr.
Gilbert WembodingaKinshasa School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Pierre BernardPôle de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium.
John DitekemenaKinshasa School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Annie RobertPôle D'Épidémiologie et Biostatistique, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Clos Chapelle-aux-champs, 30 bte B1.30.13, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor awareness of obstetric danger signs is a major contributing factor to delays in seeking obstetric care and hence to high maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. We conducted the current study to assess the level of agreement on receipt of counseling on obstetric danger signs between direct observations of antenatal care (ANC) consultation and women's recall in the exit interview. We also identified factors associated with pregnant women's awareness of obstetric danger signs during pregnancy in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

methodsWe used data from the 2017-2018 DRC Service Provision Assessment survey. Agreement between the observation and woman's recall was measured using Cohen's kappa statistic and percent agreement. Multivariable Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression was used to identify factors associated with the number of danger signs during pregnancy the woman knew.

resultsOn average, women were aware of 1.5 ± 1.34 danger signs in pregnancy (range: 0 to 8). Agreement between observation and woman's recall was 70.7%, with a positive agreement of 16.9% at the country level but ranging from 2.1% in Bandundu to 39.7% in Sud Kivu. Using multivariable ZIP analysis, the number of obstetric danger signs the women mentioned was significantly higher in multigravida women (Adj.IRR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.23-1.55), in women attending a private facility (Adj.IRR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01-1.31), in women attending a subsequent ANC visit (Adj.IRR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.21), and in women counseled on danger signs during the ANC visit (Adj.IRR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05-1.35). There was a regional variation in the awareness of danger signs, with the least mentioned signs in the middle and the most in the eastern provinces.

conclusionsOur findings indicated poor agreement between directly observed counseling and women's reports that counseling on obstetric danger signs occurred during the current ANC visit. We found that province of residence, provision of counseling on obstetric danger signs, facility ownership, gravidity and the number of ANC visits were predictors of the awareness of obstetric danger signs among pregnant women. These factors should be considered when developing strategies aim at improving women's awareness about obstetric danger signs in the DRC.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePregnant PeopleCross-Sectional StudiesDemocratic Republic of the CongoFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareAwarenessDRCObstetric danger signsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID33637065
PMCPMC7908745

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.