Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34598705›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2021

Operationalizing respectful maternity care at the healthcare provider level: a systematic scoping review.

R Rima Jolivet, Jewel Gausman, Neena Kapoor, Ana Langer, Jigyasa Sharma, Katherine E A Semrau

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
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 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R Rima JolivetDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. rjolivet@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1440-4722
Jewel GausmanDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Neena KapoorDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Ana LangerDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jigyasa SharmaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Katherine E A SemrauBetterBirth Program, Ariadne Labs|Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard Global Health Institute · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation #15-107912-000-INP
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring the right to respectful care for maternal and newborn health, a critical dimension of quality and acceptability, requires meeting standards for Respectful Maternity Care (RMC). Absence of mistreatment does not constitute RMC. Evidence generation to inform definitional standards for RMC is in an early stage. The aim of this systematic review is clear provider-level operationalization of key RMC principles, to facilitate their consistent implementation.

methodsTwo rights-based frameworks define the underlying principles of RMC. A qualitative synthesis of both frameworks resulted in seven fundamental rights during childbirth that form the foundation of RMC. To codify operational definitions for these key elements of RMC at the healthcare provider level, we systematically reviewed peer-reviewed literature, grey literature, white papers, and seminal documents on RMC. We focused on literature describing RMC in the affirmative rather than mistreatment experienced by women during childbirth, and operationalized RMC by describing objective provider-level behaviors.

resultsThrough a systematic review, 514 records (peer-reviewed articles, reports, and guidelines) were assessed to identify operational definitions of RMC grounded in those rights. After screening and review, 54 records were included in the qualitative synthesis and mapped to the seven RMC rights. The majority of articles provided guidance on operationalization of rights to freedom from harm and ill treatment; dignity and respect; information and informed consent; privacy and confidentiality; and timely healthcare. Only a quarter of articles mentioned concrete or affirmative actions to operationalize the right to non-discrimination, equality and equitable care; less than 15%, the right to liberty and freedom from coercion. Provider behaviors mentioned in the literature aligned overall with seven RMC principles; yet the smaller number of available research studies that included operationalized definitions for some key elements of RMC illustrates the nascent stage of evidence-generation in this area.

conclusionsLack of systematic codification, grounded in empirical evidence, of operational definitions for RMC at the provider level has limited the study, design, implementation, and comparative assessment of respectful care. This qualitative systematic review provides a foundation for maternity healthcare professional policy, training, programming, research, and program evaluation aimed at studying and improving RMC at the provider level.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesObstetricsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansParturitionPregnancyRespectMaternal healthMeasurementMidwiferyNursingObstetrics & gynecologyProfessional guidelinesQuality of careRespectful maternity care

Identifiers

PMID34598705
PMCPMC8485458
OpenAlexW3203828550

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.