Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35090675›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Digital health2022

A digital health registry with clinical decision support for improving quality of antenatal care in Palestine (eRegQual): a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, controlled, superiority trial.

Mahima Venkateswaran, Buthaina Ghanem, Eatimad Abbas, Khadija Abu Khader, Itimad Abu Ward, Tamara Awwad, Mohammad Baniode, Michael James Frost, Taghreed Hijaz, Mervett Isbeih and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. The FemTech revolution: Unlocking the potential of new technology for optimizing pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and remote areas.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mahima VenkateswaranGlobal Health Cluster, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Centre for Intervention Science in Maternal and Child Health (CISMAC), Centre for International Health, Department of Global Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Buthaina GhanemPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Eatimad AbbasPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Khadija Abu KhaderPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Itimad Abu WardPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Tamara AwwadPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Mohammad BaniodePalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Michael James FrostHealth Information Systems Programme, Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Taghreed HijazPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Mervett IsbeihPalestinian National Institute of Public Health, Ramallah, Palestine.
Kjersti MørkridGlobal Health Cluster, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Christopher J RoseGlobal Health Cluster, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
J Frederik FrøenGlobal Health Cluster, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; Centre for Intervention Science in Maternal and Child Health (CISMAC), Centre for International Health, Department of Global Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: frederik.froen@fhi.no.
National Institute of Public Health · SINorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth worker compliance with clinical guidelines is enhanced by digital clinical decision support at the point of care. The Palestinian public health system is implementing a digital maternal and child health eRegistry with clinical decision support. We aimed to compare the quality of antenatal care between clinics using the eRegistry and those using paper-based records.

methodsThe eRegQual cluster-randomised controlled trial was done in primary health-care clinics offering routine antenatal care in the West Bank, Palestine. The intervention was the eRegistry with clinical decision support for antenatal care, implemented in District Health Information Systems 2 (DHIS2) Tracker software. 133 clinics forming 120 clusters were included and randomised; clusters were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control (paper-based documentation) or intervention (eRegistry with clinical decision support) groups. The primary process outcomes were appropriate screening and management of anaemia, hypertension, and diabetes during pregnancy and foetal growth monitoring. The primary health outcome at delivery was a composite of moderate or severe anaemia; severe hypertension; large-for-gestational-age baby; malpresentation and small-for-gestational-age baby undetected before delivery. Data were analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression, accounting for clustering within clinics and pregnancies as appropriate. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN18008445).

findingsBetween Jan 15 and Sept 15, 2017, 3219 pregnant women received care in the intervention clinics (n=60 clusters) and 3148 pregnant women received care in the control primary health-care clinics (n=59 clusters). Compared with the control group, the intervention led to higher guideline adherence for screening and management of anaemia (1535 [28·9%] of 5320 vs 2297 [44·3%] of 5182; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·88 [95% CI 1·52-2·32]), hypertension (7555 [94·7%] of 7982 vs 7314 [96·6%] of 7569; adjusted OR 1·62 [95% CI 1·29-2·05]), and gestational diabetes (1726 (39·7%) of 4348 vs 2189 (50·7%) of 4321; adjusted OR 1·45 [95% CI 1·14-1·83]) at eligible antenatal contacts. Only 599 (9·4%) of 6367 women attended the full antenatal care schedule, and better care provision did not translate to fewer adverse health outcomes in the intervention clusters (700 cases; 21·7%) compared to the control clusters (688 cases; 21·9%; adjusted OR 0·99; 95% CI 0·87-1·12).

interpretationClinical decision support for antenatal care in the eRegistry was superior for most process outcomes but had no effect on the adverse health outcomes. The improvements in process outcomes strengthen the evidence for the WHO guideline for digital client tracking with clinical decision support in lower-middle-income settings. Digital health interventions to address gaps in attendance might help achieve effective coverage of antenatal care.

fundingEuropean Research Council and Research Council of Norway. TRANSLATION: For the Arabic translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalGuideline AdherenceMaternal HealthPrenatal CareQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareAdultFemaleHumansPregnancyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35090675
PMCPMC8811715
OpenAlexW4210607262

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.