Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33765963›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Barriers and enablers to routine register data collection for newborns and mothers: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

Donat Shamba, Louise T Day, Sojib Bin Zaman, Avinash K Sunny, Menna Narcis Tarimo, Kimberly Peven, Jasmin Khan, Nishant Thakur, Md Taqbir Us Samad Talha, Ashish K C and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Routine use of DHIS2 data: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Birthweight: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021
    Observational
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

23 authors.

Donat Shamba *Department of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Louise T Day *Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK. Louise-Tina.Day@lshtm.ac.uk.
Sojib Bin ZamanMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Avinash K SunnyGolden Community, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Menna Narcis TarimoDepartment of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Kimberly PevenCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
Jasmin KhanMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Nishant ThakurGolden Community, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Md Taqbir Us Samad TalhaMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ashish K CInternational Maternal and Child Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Rajib HaiderMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Harriet RuysenCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
Tapas MazumderMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Hafizur RahmanMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Ziaul Haque ShaikhMaternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Johan Ivar SæbøDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Claudia HansonCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
Neha S SinghCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
Joanna SchellenbergCentre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
Lara M E VazInternational Programs, Population Reference Bureau, Washington DC, USA.
Jennifer RequejoUNICEF Headquarters, New York, USA.
Joy E Lawn *Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
EN-BIRTH Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicymakers need regular high-quality coverage data on care around the time of birth to accelerate progress for ending preventable maternal and newborn deaths and stillbirths. With increasing facility births, routine Health Management Information System (HMIS) data have potential to track coverage. Identifying barriers and enablers faced by frontline health workers recording HMIS source data in registers is important to improve data for use.

methodsThe EN-BIRTH study was a mixed-methods observational study in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania to assess measurement validity for selected Every Newborn coverage indicators. We described data elements required in labour ward registers to track these indicators. To evaluate barriers and enablers for correct recording of data in registers, we designed three interview tools: a) semi-structured in-depth interview (IDI) guide b) semi-structured focus group discussion (FGD) guide, and c) checklist assessing care-to-documentation. We interviewed two groups of respondents (January 2018-March 2019): hospital nurse-midwives and doctors who fill ward registers after birth (n = 40 IDI and n = 5 FGD); and data collectors (n = 65). Qualitative data were analysed thematically by categorising pre-identified codes. Common emerging themes of barriers or enablers across all five hospitals were identified relating to three conceptual framework categories.

resultsSimilar themes emerged as both barriers and enablers. First, register design was recognised as crucial, yet perceived as complex, and not always standardised for necessary data elements. Second, register filling was performed by over-stretched nurse-midwives with variable training, limited supervision, and availability of logistical resources. Documentation complexity across parallel documents was time-consuming and delayed because of low staff numbers. Complete data were valued more than correct data. Third, use of register data included clinical handover and monthly reporting, but little feedback was given from data users.

conclusionHealth workers invest major time recording register data for maternal and newborn core health indicators. Improving data quality requires standardised register designs streamlined to capture only necessary data elements. Consistent implementation processes are also needed. Two-way feedback between HMIS levels is critical to improve performance and accurately track progress towards agreed health goals.

Indexed as

BangladeshData AccuracyData CollectionDocumentationFemaleHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal DeathNepalPerinatal CarePerinatal DeathPregnancyRegistriesStillbirthBirthCoverageData qualityFacility registersHealth management information systemsIndicatorsMaternalNewborn

Identifiers

PMID33765963
PMCPMC7995573

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.