Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36577961›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Input, process, and output factors contributing to quality of antenatal care services: a scoping review of evidence.

Resham B Khatri, Tesfaye S Mengistu, Yibeltal Assefa

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Exploring Women's Perceived Quality of Antenatal Care: A Cross-Sectional Study in The Netherlands.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Resham B KhatriSchool of Public Health, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. rkchettri@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5216-606X
Tesfaye S MengistuSchool of Public Health, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8276-5143
Yibeltal AssefaSchool of Public Health, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2393-1492
The University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-quality antenatal care (ANC) provides a lifesaving opportunity for women and their newborns through providing health promotion, disease prevention, and early diagnosis and treatment of pregnancy-related health issues. However, systematically synthesised evidence on factors influencing the quality of ANC services is lacking. This scoping review aims to systematically synthesize the factors influencing in provision and utilisation of quality ANC services.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of published evidence on the quality of ANC services. We searched records on four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google scholar) and grey literature from 1 to 2011 to 30 August 2021. We analysed data using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guideline for the review. We explained themes using the Donabedian healthcare quality assessment model (input-process-output).

resultsSeveral inputs- and process-related factors contributed to suboptimal quality of ANC in many low and lower- or middle-income countries. Input factors included facility readiness (e.g., lack of infrastructure, provision of commodities and supplies, health workforce, structural and intermediary characteristics of pregnant women, and service delivery approaches). Processes-related factors included technical quality of care (e.g., lack of skilled adequate and timely care, and poor adherence to the guidelines) and social quality (lack of effective communication and poor client satisfaction). These input and process factors have also contributed to equity gaps in utilisation of quality ANC services.

conclusionSeveral input and process factors influenced the provision and utilization of optimum quality ANC services. Better health system inputs (e.g., availability of trained workforces, commodities, guidelines, context-specific programs) are essential to creating enabling facility environment for quality ANC services. Care processes can be improved by ensuring capacity-building activities for workforces (training, technical support visits), and mentoring staff working at peripheral facilities. Identifying coverage of quality ANC services among disadvantaged groups could be the initial step in designing and implementing targeted program approaches.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeoplePrenatal CareFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePregnancyQuality of Health CareAntenatal careHealth systemsInputsOutputsProcessesQuality

Identifiers

PMID36577961
PMCPMC9795647
OpenAlexW4313417086

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.