Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34348749›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2021

Perceptions of family, community and religious leaders and acceptability for minimal invasive tissue sampling to identify the cause of death in under-five deaths and stillbirths in North India: a qualitative study.

Manoja Kumar Das, Narendra Kumar Arora, Gurkirat Kaur, Prikanksha Malik, Mahisha Kumari, Shipra Joshi, Reeta Rasaily, Harish Chellani, Harsha Gaikwad, Pradeep Debata and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Manoja Kumar DasThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, 110020, India. manoj@inclentrust.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8559-5837
Narendra Kumar AroraThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, 110020, India.
Gurkirat KaurThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, 110020, India.
Prikanksha MalikThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, 110020, India.
Mahisha KumariThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, 110020, India.
Shipra JoshiThe INCLEN Trust International, New Delhi, 110020, India.
Reeta RasailyDivision of Reproductive Biology Maternal and Child Health, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Harish ChellaniDepartment of Pediatrics, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Harsha GaikwadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Pradeep DebataDepartment of Pediatrics, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi, 110029, India.
K R MeenaDepartment of Pediatrics, Safdarjung Hospital and Vardhman Mahavir Medical College, New Delhi, 110029, India.
INCLEN Trust International · INVardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital · INIndian Council of Medical Research · IN

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1184205Indian Council of Medical Research 5/7/1504/2016-CH
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimal invasive tissue sampling (MITS) has emerged as a suitable alternative to complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA) for determination of the cause of death (CoD), due to feasibility and acceptability issues. A formative research was conducted to document the perceptions of parents, community and religious leaders on acceptability of MITS.

methodsThis qualitative study was conducted at and around the Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India. Participants for in-depth interview included the parents who had either child or neonatal death or stillbirth and the key community and religious representatives. The focus group discussions (FGDs) involved community members. Process of obtaining consent for MITS was observed. Data were analyzed inductively manually for emerging themes and codes.

resultsA total of 104 interviews (parents of deceased children, neonates or stillbirths, n = 93; community members, n = 8 and religious leaders, n = 7), 8 FGDs (n = 72) were conducted and process of obtaining consent for MITS (n = 27) was observed. The participants were positive and expressed willingness to accept MITS. The key determinants for acceptance of MITS were: (1) understanding and willingness to know the cause of death or stillbirth, (2) experience of the healthcare received and trust, (3) the religious and sociocultural norms. Parents and community favored for MITS over CDA when needed, especially where in cases with past stillbirths and child deaths. The experience of treatment, attitude and communication from healthcare providers emerged as important for consent. The decision making process was collective involving the elders and family. No religious leader was against the procedure, as both, the respect for the deceased and need for medical care were satisfied.

conclusionsLargely, MITS appeared to be acceptable for identifying the causes of child deaths and stillbirths, if the parents and family are counseled appropriately considering the sociocultural and religious aspects. They perceived the quality of care, attitude and communication by the healthcare providers as critical factors for acceptance of MITS.

Indexed as

PerceptionStillbirthAgedAutopsyCause of DeathChildFemaleHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornPregnancyCause of deathChildCommunityFormative researchIndiaMinimal invasive tissue samplingNeonatesParentsReligious leadersStillbirth

Identifiers

PMID34348749
PMCPMC8336381
OpenAlexW3188049367

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.