Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962191›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Discharge instructions given to women following delivery by cesarean section in Sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review.

Juliet Musabeyezu, Jenna Santos, Anne Niyigena, Ange Uwimana, Bethany Hedt-Gauthier, Adeline A Boatin

Open access · goldFull text readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Safe recovery after cesarean in rural Africa: Technical consensus guidelines for post-discharge care.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Juliet MusabeyezuHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1358-3140
Jenna SantosBoston College, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Anne NiyigenaPartners in Health, Kigali, Rwanda.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6140-8083
Ange UwimanaUniversity of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5225-2064
Bethany Hedt-GauthierDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9689-5413
Adeline A BoatinHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3420-7846
Harvard University · USBoston College · USIllinois College · US

Funding

Wireless Physiologic Monitoring in Postpartum Women in rural UgandaK23HD097300 · NICHD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BOATIN, ADELINE ADWOA · 2018 to 2022
$863k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD097300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA scoping review of discharge instructions for women undergoing cesarean section (c-section) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

methodStudies were identified from PubMed, Globus Index Medicus, NiPAD, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases. Eligible papers included research based in a SSA country, published in English or French, and containing information on discharge instructions addressing general postnatal care, wound care, planning of future births, or postpartum depression targeted for women delivering by c-section. For analysis, we used the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews followed by a narrative synthesis. We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE system.

resultsWe identified 78 eligible studies; 5 papers directly studied discharge protocols and 73 included information on discharge instructions in the context of a different study objective. 37 studies addressed wound care, with recommendations to return to a health facility for dressing changes and wound checks between 3 days to 6 weeks. 16 studies recommended antibiotic use at discharge, with 5 specifying a particular antibiotic. 19 studies provided recommendations around contraception and family planning, with 6 highlighting intrauterine device placement immediately after birth or 6-weeks postpartum and 6 studies discussing the importance of counselling services. Only 5 studies provided recommendations for the evaluation and management of postpartum depression in c-section patients; these studies screened for depression at 4-8 weeks postpartum and highlighted connections between c-section delivery and the loss of self-esteem as well as connections between emergency c-section delivery and psychiatric morbidity.

conclusionFew studies in SSA directly examine discharge protocols and instructions for women following c-section. Those available demonstrate wide variation in recommendations. Research is needed to develop structured evidence-based instructions with clear timelines for women. These instructions should account for financial burden, access to resources, and education of patients and communities.

Identifiers

PMID36962191
PMCPMC10021225
OpenAlexW4224299151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read12
identifiers read3
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.