ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
Evaluation of antenatal services at Family welfare Centre under RMNCH+A Programme in Delhi.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to WHO, 536,000 women die every year in the world from causes relating to pregnancy, childbirth, or postpartum. Ninety nine percent of these deaths occur in the developing countries. Primary health centres (in densely populated areas and in urban slums are also referred to as family welfare centres, since they provide the whole continuum of care, from birth through adolescent and delivery and thereafter.
aimTo evaluate the antenatal services under Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child plus Adolescent (RMNCHA) programme at a family welfare centre located in Central Delhi, India. We have proposed an action plan that will help in evaluating and improving these services. METHODOLOGY: The study included health providers of antenatal services and the beneficiaries. With a response rate of 90% from a sample of 218, 203 consenting antenatal women (beneficiaries) visiting the centre for ANC check-up under RMNCH + A programme and PMSMA were included. For quantitative component, a pre-designed, pre-tested semi-structured screening questionnaire were administered to the beneficiaries and healthcare providers to evaluate the antenatal services under RMNCH + A programme at the family welfare centre.
resultsQualitative and quantitative analysis was done separately. Only 43% of ANC women said health workers visited them at home during pregnancy and very few could tell about importance of lab investigations. Almost all (97%) knew about key messages given by health workers. Nearly all participants considered that the screening process was smooth. The waiting time and time to undergo varied from 4 to 6 min.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.