Trial reportBMJ open2022
Effect of a perinatal care quality improvement package on patient satisfaction: a secondary outcome analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Music on Pain, Anxiety, and Satisfaction During Intrauterine Device Application: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Research in nursing & health · 2026Trial
- Exploration of factors affecting parent-infant closeness and separation in hospitals in Nepal - a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of a quality improvement (QI) package on patient satisfaction of perinatal care.
designSecondary analysis of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. Participating hospitals were randomised by size into four different wedges.
setting12 secondary-level public hospitals in Nepal.
participantsWomen who gave birth in the hospitals at a gestational age of ≥22 weeks, with fetal heart sound at admission. Adverse outcomes were excluded. One hospital was excluded due to data incompleteness and four low-volume hospitals due to large heterogeneity. The final analysis included 54 919 women.
interventionHospital management was engaged and facilitators were recruited from within hospitals. Available perinatal care was assessed in each hospital, followed by a bottle-neck analysis workshop. A 3-day training in essential newborn care was carried out for health workers involved in perinatal care, and a set of QI tools were introduced to be used in everyday practice (skill-checks, self-assessment checklists, scoreboards and weekly Plan-Do-Study-Act meetings). Refresher training after 6 months. OUTCOME MEASURE: Women's satisfaction with care during childbirth (a prespecified secondary outcome).
resultsThe likelihood of women being overall satisfied with care during childbirth increased after the intervention (adjusted OR (aOR): 1.66, 95% CI: 1.59 to 1.73). However, the proportions of overall satisfaction were low (control 58%, intervention 62%). Women were more likely to be satisfied with education and information from health workers after intervention (aOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.40) and to have been treated with dignity and respect (aOR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.52 to 2.16). The likelihood of having experienced abuse during the hospital stay decreased (aOR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.51) and of being satisfied with the level of privacy increased (aOR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.18).
conclusionsImprovements in patient satisfaction were indicated after the introduction of a QI-package on perinatal care. We recommend further studies on which aspects of care are most important to improve women's satisfaction of perinatal care in hospitals in Nepal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30829654.
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.