Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37407983›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2023

Stakeholders' perspectives on the acceptability and feasibility of maternity waiting homes: a qualitative synthesis.

Eva Julia van Braam, Daphne N McRae, Anayda G Portela, Jelle Stekelenburg, Loveday Penn-Kekana

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Perspectives of pregnant women on the utilisation of a maternity waiting home near Onandjokwe Lutheran Hospital in Oshikoto Region, Namibia.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Eva Julia van BraamFaculty of Medicine, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. e.j.van.braam.2@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8946-9539
Daphne N McRaeDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Anayda G PortelaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health and Ageing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jelle StekelenburgDepartment of Health Sciences, Global Health Unit, University Medical Centre Groningen/University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Loveday Penn-KekanaDepartment of Maternal Health and Health Systems, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaternity waiting homes (MHWs) are recommended to help bridge the geographical gap to accessing maternity services. This study aimed to provide an analysis of stakeholders' perspectives (women, families, communities and health workers) on the acceptability and feasibility of MWHs.

methodsA qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted. Studies that were published between January 1990 and July 2020, containing qualitative data on the perspectives of the stakeholder groups were included. A combination of inductive and deductive coding and thematic synthesis was used to capture the main perspectives in a thematic framework.

resultsOut of 4,532 papers that were found in the initial search, a total of 38 studies were included for the thematic analysis. Six themes emerged: (1) individual factors, such as perceived benefits, awareness and knowledge of the MWH; (2) interpersonal factors and domestic responsibilities, such as household and childcare responsibilities, decision-making processes and social support; (3) MWH characteristics, such as basic services and food provision, state of MWH infrastructure; (4) financial and geographical accessibility, such as transport availability, costs for MWH attendance and loss of income opportunity; (5) perceived quality of care in the MWH and the adjacent health facility, including regular check-ups by health workers and respectful care; and (6) Organization and advocacy, for example funding, community engagement, governmental involvement. The decision-making process of women and their families for using an MWH involves balancing out the gains and losses, associated with all six themes.

conclusionThis systematic synthesis of qualitative literature provides in-depth insights of interrelating factors that influence acceptability and feasibility of MWHs according to different stakeholders. The findings highlight the potential of MWHs as important links in the maternal and neonatal health (MNH) care delivery system. The complexity and scope of these determinants of utilization underlines the need for MWH implementation strategy to be guided by context. Better documentation of MWH implementation, is needed to understand which type of MWH is most effective in which setting, and to ensure that those who most need the MWH will use it and receive quality services. These results can be of interest for stakeholders, implementers of health interventions, and governmental parties that are responsible for MNH policy development to implement acceptable and feasible MWHs that provide the greatest benefits for its users. Trial registration Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020192219.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityMaternal Health ServicesFamilyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyRural PopulationCare-seekingMaternal and newborn health servicesMaternity waiting homesSafe motherhood

Identifiers

PMID37407983
PMCPMC10324180

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.