Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35087708›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of global health2022

Maternity Waiting Home Interventions as a Strategy for Improving Birth Outcomes: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.

Samantha Smith, Hannah Henrikson, Rita Thapa, Suresh Tamang, Ruma Rajbhandari

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisScoping Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Perspectives of pregnant women on the utilisation of a maternity waiting home near Onandjokwe Lutheran Hospital in Oshikoto Region, Namibia.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Samantha SmithBrigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Medicine, Division of Global Health Equity, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6459-9644
Hannah HenriksonBrigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Medicine, Division of Global Health Equity, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8489-4272
Rita ThapaNick Simons Institute, Sanepa, Lalitpur, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0003-1942-9635
Suresh TamangNick Simons Institute, Sanepa, Lalitpur, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-9659-1700
Ruma RajbhandariBrigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Medicine, Division of Global Health Equity, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8281-550X
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USNick Simons Institute · NPHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveOver 300 000 women worldwide die due to pregnancy-related complications annually, with most occurring in developing countries where access to skilled obstetric care is limited. Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) are one intervention designed to increase access to skilled prenatal care in resource-limited settings. MWHs are defined as accommodations at or near a health facility where pregnant women can stay in the final weeks of their pregnancy so they can be easily transferred to the health facility to give birth. While MWHs have existed for decades, evidence regarding their effectiveness in reducing adverse birth outcomes has been mixed. The objective of this study is to comprehensively assess all available MWH research reporting quantitative maternal and childbirth data to determine whether MWHs are an effective maternal health strategy in resource-limited settings. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a scoping review and meta-analysis of existing literature on MWHs according to PRISMA guidelines. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios were calculated for the following birth outcomes: maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, and caesarian section. Quantitative analysis was conducted in RStudio and Stata Version 16.

resultsOne hundred seventy-one records were retrieved from our initial database search, of which 66 were identified as relevant. Only 15 of these records reported quantitative data on the health outcomes of interest and therefore met inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. All studies reporting maternal mortality demonstrated a protective effect of MWHs (aggregate OR: 0.19 [0.10, 0.40]), as did all studies reporting perinatal mortality (aggregate OR: 0.29 [0.16, 0.53]). Studies reporting caesarian section were more varied and indicated less of a protective effect (aggregate OR: 1.80 [1.18, 2.75]).

conclusionsThere is some indication that MWHs are an effective strategy for reducing maternal and perinatal mortality in resource-limited settings. However, our analysis was constrained by the observational design of most prior MWH studies. More rigorous MWH evaluations, ideally in the form of randomized-control trials, are needed to better determine MWH effectiveness.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicParturitionPregnancyPrenatal Care

Identifiers

PMID35087708
PMCPMC8782095
OpenAlexW4206300673

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.