Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35651969›Full record

ReviewAnnals of global health2022

Planning for Maternity Waiting Home Bed Capacity: Lessons from Rural Zambia.

Taryn Vian, Jeanette L Kaiser, Thandiwe Ngoma, Allison Juntunen, Kaluba K Mataka, Misheck Bwalya, Viviane I R Sakanga, Peter C Rockers, Davidson H Hamer, Godfrey Biemba and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors.

Taryn VianSchool of Nursing and Health Professions, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, US.ORCID 0000-0002-6968-7002
Jeanette L KaiserDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, US.ORCID 0000-0001-6008-5219
Thandiwe NgomaDepartment of Research, Right to Care Zambia, Lusaka, ZM.
Allison JuntunenDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, US.ORCID 0000-0001-8877-5107
Kaluba K MatakaZenysis Technologies, Lusaka, ZM.
Misheck BwalyaMothers2mothers (m2m), Lusaka, ZM.
Viviane I R SakangaAmref Health Africa, Lusaka, ZM.
Peter C RockersDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, US.
Davidson H HamerDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, US.ORCID 0000-0002-4700-1495
Godfrey BiembaNational Health Research Authority, Pediatric Centre of Excellence, Lusaka, ZM.ORCID 0000-0002-6064-6722
Nancy A ScottDepartment of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, US.ORCID 0000-0002-4713-4642

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Maternity waiting homes (MWH) allow pregnant women to stay in a residential facility close to a health center while awaiting delivery. This approach can improve health outcomes for women and children. Health planners need to consider many factors in deciding the number of beds needed for an MWH. Objective: The objective of the study is to review experience in Zambia in planning and implementing MWHs, and consider lessons learned in determining optimal capacity. Methods: We conducted a study of 10 newly built MWH in Zambia over 12 months. For this case study analysis, data on beds, service volume, and catchment area population were examined, including women staying at the homes, bed occupancy, and average length of stay. We analyzed bed occupancy by location and health facility catchment area size, and categorized occupancy by month from very low to very high. Findings: Most study sites were rural, with 3 of the 10 study sites rural-remote. Four sites served small catchment areas (<9 000), 3 had medium (9 000-11 000), and 3 had large (>11 000) size populations. Annual occupancy was variable among the sites, ranging from 13% (a medium rural site) to 151% (a large rural-remote site). Occupancy higher than 100% was accommodated by repurposing the MWH postnatal beds and using extra mattresses. Most sites had between 26-69% annual occupancy, but monthly occupancy was highly variable for reasons that seem unrelated to catchment area size, rural or rural-remote location. Conclusion: Planning for MWH capacity is difficult due to high variability. Our analysis suggests planners should try to gather actual recent monthly birth data and estimate capacity using the highest expected utilization months, anticipating that facility-based deliveries may increase with introduction of a MWH. Further research is needed to document and share data on MWH operations, including utilization statistics like number of beds, mattresses, occupancy rates and average length of stay.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesChildFemaleHealth FacilitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPregnancyRural PopulationZambiaaverage length of stayfacility deliveryhealth system strengtheningmaternal healthmothers’ sheltersoccupancy rate

Identifiers

PMID35651969
PMCPMC9138814

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.