Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962936›Full record

ReviewPLOS global public health2023

A critical interpretive synthesis of power and mistreatment of women in maternity care.

Marta Schaaf, Maayan Jaffe, Özge Tunçalp, Lynn Freedman

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. "They Tarred Me with the Same Brush": Navigating Stigma in the Context of Child Removal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marta SchaafIndependent Consultant, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7616-5966
Maayan JaffeIndependent Consultant, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4939-770X
Özge TunçalpDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5370-682X
Lynn FreedmanHeilbrunn Department of Population and Family Health, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4288-605X
Columbia University · USWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Labouring women may be subjected to physical and verbal abuse that reflects dynamics of power, described as Mistreatment of Women (MoW). This Critical Interpretive Synthesis on power and MoW consolidates current research and advances theory and practice through inter-disciplinary literature exploration. The review was undertaken in 3 phases. Phase 1 consisted of topic scoping; phase 2 entailed exploration of key power-related drivers emerging from the topic scoping; and phase 3 entailed data synthesis and analysis, with a particular focus on interventions. We identified 63 papers for inclusion in Phase 1. These papers utilized a variety of methods and approaches and represented a wide range of geographic regions. The power-related drivers of mistreatment in these articles span multiple levels of the social ecological model, including intrapersonal (e.g. lack of knowledge about one's rights), interpersonal (e.g. patient-provider hierarchy), community (e.g. widespread discrimination against indigenous women), organizational (e.g. pressure to achieve performance goals), and law/policy (e.g. lack of accountability for rights violations). Most papers addressed more than one level of the social-ecological model, though a significant minority were focused just on interpersonal factors. During Phase 1, we identified priority themes relating to under-explored power-related drivers of MoW for exploration in Phase 2, including lack of conscientization and normalization of MoW; perceptions of fitness for motherhood; geopolitical and ethnopolitical projects related to fertility; and pressure to achieve quantifiable performance goals. We ultimately included 104 papers in Phase 2. The wide-ranging findings from Phase 3 (synthesis and analysis) coalesce in several key meta-themes, each with their own evidence-base for action. Consistent with the notion that research on power can point us to "drivers of the drivers," the paper includes some intervention-relevant insights for further exploration, including as relating to broader social norms, health systems design, and the utility of multi-level strategies.

Identifiers

PMID36962936
PMCPMC10021192
OpenAlexW4318586254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
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.