Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35925923›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

A systematic review of home-based records in maternal and child health for improving informational continuity, health outcomes, and perceived usefulness in low and middle-income countries.

Linju Joseph, Anna Lavis, Sheila Greenfield, Dona Boban, Prinu Jose, Panniyammakal Jeemon, Semira Manaseki-Holland

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An audit of completeness of Road to Health Booklet at a community health centre in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Linju JosephInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2043-1097
Anna LavisInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Sheila GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Dona BobanAmrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Cochin, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1614-4784
Prinu JosePublic Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Panniyammakal JeemonSree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
Semira Manaseki-HollandInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
University of Birmingham · GBAmrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre · INPublic Health Foundation of India · INSree Chitra Thirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology · IN

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M00287X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence shows that a gap in the documentation of patients' past medical history leads to errors in, or duplication of, treatment and is a threat to patient safety. Home-based or patient-held records (HBR) are widely used in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) in maternal and childcare. The aim is to systematically review the evidence on HBRs in LMICs for (1) improving informational continuity for providers and women/families across health care visits and facilities, (2) to describe the perceived usefulness by women/families and healthcare providers, and (3) maternal and child health outcomes of using HBRs for maternal and child health care.

methodsThe protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019139365). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus databases for studies with home-based records from LMICs. Search terms pertained to women or parent-held records and LMICs. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion using a priori study selection criteria- studies explaining the use of HBRs in LMIC for maternal and child health care. The included study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results from all study designs were summarised narratively.

resultsIn total, 41 papers were included in the review from 4514 potential studies. Included studies represented various study designs and 16 countries. The least evaluated function of HBR was information continuity across health care facilities (n = 6). Overall, there were limited data on the usefulness of HBRs to providers and mothers/families. Home-based records were mostly available for providers during health care visits. However, the documentation in HBRs varied. The use of HBRs is likely to lead to improved antenatal visits and immunisation uptake, and skilled birth delivery in some settings. Mothers' knowledge of breastfeeding practices and danger signs in pregnancy improved with the use of HBRs. One randomised trial found the use of HBRs reduced the risk of cognitive development delay in children and another reported on trial lessened the risk of underweight and stunted growth in children.

conclusionThere is limited literature from LMICs on the usefulness of HBRs and for improving information transfer across healthcare facilities, or their use by women at home. Current HBRs from LMICs are sub-optimally documented leading to poor informational availability that defeats the point of them as a source of information for future providers.

Indexed as

Child HealthDeveloping CountriesChildFemaleHumansMothersOutcome Assessment, Health CarePovertyPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID35925923
PMCPMC9352021
OpenAlexW4289847709

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.