Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37997894›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2023

Facilitators and barriers of implementation of routine postnatal care guidelines for women: A systematic scoping review using critical interpretive synthesis.

Lenka Beňová, Aline Semaan, Anayda Portela, Mercedes Bonet, Thomas van den Akker, Andrea B Pembe, Allisyn Moran, Diane Duclos

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Lenka Beňová *Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Aline Semaan *Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Anayda PortelaWorld Health Organization, Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mercedes BonetUNDP/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.
Thomas van den AkkerVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Andrea B PembeMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam Tanzania (s).
Allisyn MoranWorld Health Organization, Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, Geneva, Switzerland.
Diane DuclosLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
World Health Organization · CHLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BELeiden University · NLMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZ

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Postnatal care (PNC) has the potential to prevent a substantial burden of maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise themes related to facilitators and barriers of implementation of guidelines on routine PNC for women (postpartum care) in all settings. Methods: This is a scoping review guided by the standard principles of Arksey & O'Malley's framework. We used the critical interpretive synthesis method to synthesise the whole body of evidence. We searched four databases (Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL Plus) using a combination of search terms comprising four key concepts: postnatal care, routine care, guidelines and implementation. No restrictions on country or language of publication were applied. We excluded studies not presenting findings about PNC for women. We thematically charted the themes of studies included based on title and abstract screening. All studies included after full text screening were described and their results synthesised using the socio-ecological model framework. We did not conduct a risk of bias analysis or quality assessment of included studies. Results: We identified a total of 8692 unique records and included 43 studies which identified facilitators and barriers to implementing routine guidelines in provision of PNC to women. Three quarters of studies pertained to PNC provision in high-income countries. Specific facilitators and barriers were identified and thematically presented based on whether they affect the provision of PNC or the intersection between provision of PNC and its use by women and families. We applied a critical global health lens to synthesise three constructs in the literature: finding a balance between standardisation and individualisation of PNC, the fragmented PNC provision landscape complicating the experiences of women with intersecting vulnerabilities, and the heavy reliance on the short postpartum period as an opportunity to educate and retain women and newborns in the health system. Conclusions: This interpretive synthesis of evidence shows that the fragmented and narrow nature of PNC provision presents specific challenges to developing, adapting and implementing routine PNC guidelines. This results in a lack of linkages to social support and services, fails to address intersecting vulnerabilities and inequities among women, and negatively influences care seeking. There is a lack of evidence on how processes of individualising PNC provision can be applied in practice to support health workers in providing woman-centered PNC in various global settings. Registration: https://www.protocols.io/private/C99DA688881F11EBB4690A58A9FEAC02.

Indexed as

Postnatal CarePostpartum PeriodFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInfant, NewbornPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancySocial Support

Identifiers

PMID37997894
PMCPMC10668206
OpenAlexW4388972004

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.