Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34769730›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes among Maternity Waiting Home Users and Non-Users in Rural Rwanda.

Edwin Tayebwa, Richard Kalisa, Amedee Fidele Ndibaza, Lisa Cornelissen, Eefje Klein Teeselink, Young-Mi Kim, Jeroen van Dillen, Jelle Stekelenburg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Edwin TayebwaUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Global Health, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2424-0992
Richard KalisaIntraHealth International, Kigali 6639, Rwanda.ORCID 0000-0003-4500-2264
Amedee Fidele NdibazaIntraHealth International, Kigali 6639, Rwanda.
Lisa CornelissenGelre Hospital, Albert Schweitzerlaan 31, 7334 DZ Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.
Eefje Klein TeeselinkAmalia Children's Hospital, Radboudumc Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Young-Mi KimJhpiego, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.
Jeroen van DillenAmalia Children's Hospital, Radboudumc Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jelle StekelenburgUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Global Health, University of Groningen, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-6620
IntraHealth International · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLGelre Hospitals · NLJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most maternal and perinatal deaths could be prevented through timely access to skilled birth attendants. Women should access appropriate obstetric care during pregnancy, labor, and puerperium. Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) permit access to emergency obstetric care when labor starts. This study compared maternal and perinatal outcomes among MWH users and non-users through a retrospective cohort study. Data were collected through obstetric chart reviews and analyzed using STATA version 15. Of the 8144 deliveries reported between 2015 and 2019, 1305 women had high-risk pregnancies and were included in the study. MWH users had more spontaneous vaginal deliveries compared to non-users (38.6% versus 16.8%) and less cesarean sections (57.7% versus 76.7%). Maternal morbidities such as postpartum hemorrhage occurred less frequently among users than non-users (2.13% versus 5.64%). Four women died among non-users while there was no death among users. Non-users had more stillbirths than users (7.68% versus 0.91%). The MWH may have contributed to the observed differences in outcomes. However, many women with high risk pregnancies did not use the MWH, indicating a probable gap in awareness, usefulness, or their inability to stay due to other responsibilities at home. Use of MWHs at scale could improve maternal and perinatal outcomes in Rwanda.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansParturitionPregnancyRetrospective StudiesRwandamaternal morbiditymaternal mortalitymaternity waiting homeprior caesarean sectionstillbirth

Identifiers

PMID34769730
PMCPMC8583170
OpenAlexW3209765959

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.