Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36579597›Full record

ReviewJournal of global health2022

Measurement of self-reported, facility-based labour and birth experiences: The Perinatal Experience Assessment Tool (PEAT).

Cathryn Ellis, Charles P Larson, Frank Bicaba, Abel Bicaba, An Nguyen, Jean Ramdé, Alexandra Otis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Cathryn EllisMidwifery Program, Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Charles P LarsonCanadian Coalition for Global Health Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Frank BicabaSociété d'Études et de Recherche en Santé Publique, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Abel BicabaSociété d'Études et de Recherche en Santé Publique, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
An NguyenHealthBridge Vietnam, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Jean RamdéDirection en santé mondiale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Alexandra OtisCanadian Coalition for Global Health Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Women and their families make decisions on accessing perinatal care based on their experiences in the health care system and on the experience of others around them. Receiving supportive maternity care which demonstrates respect is an essential part of quality care. Globally, and in low- and middle-income countries in particular, women report receiving mistreatment and a lack of respect during labour, childbirth and the early postnatal period. These experiences, if negative, may influence choices around place of birth, thus hindering the scale-up of facility-based births. Methods: We conducted a focussed review of the literature between 2010 and 2019 to identify recent research addressing the assessment of women's experiences during childbirth in low- and middle-income country facilities. The World Health Organization (WHO) and White Ribbon Alliance themes and concepts of respectful maternity care served as a guide. Themes included disrespectful or abusive experiences such as verbal abuse or rudeness, abandonment, corruption, lack of privacy, failure to respect traditional practices, discrimination, and physical or sexual abuse. Experienced midwives in two low-resource countries contributed to the identification of appropriate indicators of respectful, non-abusive care, and eventual agreement as to which to include in an assessment tool monitoring women's experiences. Results: Our review of the literature identified 18 publications meeting pre-established criteria. This resulted in the eventual selection of 33 indicators of respectful care sub-grouped under 9 domains: 1) communication/verbal interaction, 2) supportive care, 3) physical abuse, 4) non-consented care, 5) non-confidential care/lack of privacy, 6) stigma and discrimination, 7) abandonment/neglect, 8) detention/inability to pay, and 9) health facility conditions. We converted these indicators into questions to be asked by an interviewer during a short interview following discharge to assess the childbirth experience. Conclusions: The Perinatal Experience Assessment Tool (PEAT) may be used to monitor or evaluate the experiences that women report after facility-based childbirth. It can be administered by trained, independent interviewers in the facility following discharge. The PEAT enables maternity leaders to assess the extent to which maternity services are conducted in a respectful, non-abusive manner and modify practices and procedures as feasible and appropriate.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesAttitude of Health PersonnelDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansParturitionPregnancyQuality of Health CareSelf ReportSoilSoil

Identifiers

PMID36579597
PMCPMC9798243

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.