ArticleBMJ open2022
Effectiveness of a training intervention in increasing the use of misoprostol in postabortion care in Malawi: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study was conducted to determine effectiveness of a training intervention in increasing use of misoprostol in management of incomplete abortions.
designA quasi-experimental study with training intervention on use of misoprostol in treatment of incomplete abortion.
settingFive secondary-level public hospitals in Malawi, one in urban and four in semiurban settings. Three intervention and two control sites.
participantsRecords of women treated for first-trimester incomplete abortion from March to May 2020 (baseline) and April to June 2021 (endline). Clinical data were collected from 865 records, 421 before and 444 after the intervention in all study sites.
interventionThree-hour theoretical training sessions for 81 healthcare workers were conducted in July 2020 at the three intervention sites. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of women with incomplete abortion treated with misoprostol before and after the intervention. The proportion of women treated with sharp curettage at the study sites.
resultsAt the intervention sites, there was a significant increase in use of misoprostol from 22.8% (95% CI 17.9% to 28.0%) to 35.9% (95% CI 30.5% to 41.6%) and significant reduction in use of sharp curettage from 48.1% (95% CI 41.9% to 54.3%) to 39.4% (95% CI 35.3% to 42.6%) p<0.01 at baseline and endline, respectively. The use of misoprostol was significantly higher at the intervention sites with OR of 5.02 (95% CI 1.7 to 14.7) p<0.05 compared with control sites at the endline in multivariable models, and there was a difference in the difference of 14.4% ((95% CI 10.4% to 18.2%) p<0.001) between the intervention and control sites after the intervention.
conclusionsA training intervention effectively increased the use of misoprostol in the treatment of incomplete abortions. Increasing misoprostol use will make treatment of incomplete abortion cheaper, easier and more easily accessible. Making quality postabortion care accessible to more women may reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. Further training interventions are recommended.
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.