Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36963069›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

From global recommendations to (in)action: A scoping review of the coverage of companion of choice for women during labour and birth.

Meghan A Bohren, Alya Hazfiarini, Martha Vazquez Corona, Mercedes Colomar, Bremen De Mucio, Özge Tunçalp, Anayda Portela

Full text readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article 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 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Meghan A BohrenGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4179-4682
Alya HazfiariniGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.
Martha Vazquez CoronaGender and Women's Health Unit, Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2061-9540
Mercedes ColomarThe Latin American Center for Perinatology/Women´s and Reproductive Health Unit, Pan American Health Organization, Montevideo, Uruguay.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7424-5551
Bremen De MucioThe Latin American Center for Perinatology/Women´s and Reproductive Health Unit, Pan American Health Organization, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Özge TunçalpUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Anayda PortelaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women greatly value and benefit from the presence of someone they trust to support them throughout labour and childbirth ('labour companion of choice'). Labour companionship improves maternal and perinatal outcomes, including enhancing physiological labour and birth experiences. Despite clear benefits, implementation is slow. We conducted a scoping review to assess coverage and models of labour companionship, including quantitative studies reporting coverage of labour companionship in any level health facility globally. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Global Health from 1 January 2010-14 December 2021. We extracted data on study design, labour companionship coverage, timing and type of companions allowed, and recoded data into categories for comparison across studies. We included data from a maternal health sentinel network of hospitals in Latin America, using descriptive statistics to assess coverage among 120,581 women giving birth in these sites from April 2018-April 2022. In the scoping review, we included 77 studies from 27 countries. There was wide variation in the coverage of labour companionship: almost one-third of studies reported coverage less than 40%, and one-third of studies reported coverage between 40-80%. Husbands or partners were the most frequent companion (37.7%, 29/77), followed by family member or friend (gender not specified) (32.5%, 25/77), family member or friend (female-only) (13.0%, 10/77). Across nine sentinel hospitals in five Latin American countries, there was variation in coverage, with no companion at any time ranging from 14.9%-93.8%. Despite the well-known benefits and factors affecting implementation of labour companionship, more work is needed to improve equitable coverage. Concerted efforts are needed to engage with communities, health workers, health managers, and policy-makers to establish policies, address implementation barriers, and integrate data on coverage into perinatal records and quality processes to ensure that all women have access. Harmonized reporting of labour companionship would greatly enhance understanding at global level.

Identifiers

PMID36963069
PMCPMC10021298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read221
reference markers read5
identifiers read6
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.