Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36180098›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2022

Understanding maternity waiting home uptake and scale-up within low-income and middle-income countries: a programme theory from a realist review and synthesis.

Nadege Sandrine Uwamahoro, Daphne McRae, Elaine Zibrowski, Ify Victor-Uadiale, Brynne Gilmore, Nicole Bergen, Nazeem Muhajarine

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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.

Nadege Sandrine UwamahoroCommunity Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9296-0396
Daphne McRaeCommunity Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8113-9028
Elaine ZibrowskiBest Care COPD, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5653-3303
Ify Victor-UadialeInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1580-1807
Brynne GilmoreUCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4496-9254
Nicole BergenSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8161-2599
Nazeem MuhajarineCommunity Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada nazeem.muhajarine@usask.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6781-5421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMaternity waiting homes (MWHs) link pregnant women to skilled birth attendance at health facilities. Research suggests that some MWH-facility birth interventions are more success at meeting the needs and expectations of their intended users than others. We aimed to develop theory regarding what resources work to support uptake and scale-up of MHW-facility birth interventions, how, for whom, in what contexts and why.

methodsA four-step realist review was conducted which included development of an initial programme theory; searches for evidence; selection, appraisal and extraction of data; and analysis and data synthesis.

resultsA programme theory was developed from 106 secondary sources and 12 primary interviews with MWH implementers. The theory demonstrated that uptake and scale-up of the MWH-facility birth intervention depends on complex interactions between three adopter groups: health system stakeholders, community gatekeepers and pregnant women and their families. It describes relationships between 19 contexts, 11 mechanisms and 31 outcomes accross nine context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) which were grouped into 3 themes: (1) Engaging stakeholders to develop, integrate, and sustain MWH-facility birth interventions, (2) Promoting and enabling MWH-facility birth utilisation and (3) Creating positive and memorable MWH-facility birth user experiences. Belief, trust, empowerment, health literacy and perceptions of safety, comfort and dignity were mechanisms that supported diffusion and adoption of the intervention within communities and health systems. Examples of resources provided by implementers to trigger mechanisms associated with each CMOC were identified.

conclusionsImplementers of MWHs cannot merely assume that communities will collectively value an MWH-facility birth experience over delivery at home. We posit that MWH-facility birth interventions become vulnerable to under-utilisation when implementers fail to: (1) remove barriers that hinder women's access to MWH and (2) ensure that conditions and interactions experienced within the MWH and its affiliated health facility support women to feel treated with compassion, dignity and respect. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173595.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansParturitionPovertyPregnancyHealth services researchMaternal healthObstetricsOther study designPrevention strategies

Identifiers

PMID36180098
PMCPMC9528638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.