ArticleBMJ open2024
Realist evaluation of maternity waiting home intervention models in Inhambane, Mozambique: protocol for a comparative embedded case study, the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health Project.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis is a study protocol that tests and refines realist theories regarding the uptake and scale-up of the linked maternity waiting home (hereafter MWH) and facility birth intervention in the Mozambican context. The theories were developed through a realist review of MWH-facility birth literature from low-income and middle-income countries. The aim of the proposed study is to contribute to a contextually refined understanding of the causal chains underlying MWH-facility birth adoption by pregnant women and their families, communities, the health system and donors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The overarching methodology is mixed-methods realist evaluation. The study will adopt a comparative embedded case study design comparing three new masonry MWHs built by the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health Project in Inhambane province with three older MWHs selected based on variation in the built environment. Baseline data on participating MWH-facility birth interventions will be collected through observations, reviews of routine data and analysis of statistics and reports from provincial and district health authorities and the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health project. Realist interviews will be conducted with MWH users and non-users, companions of MWH users and non-users, partners of MWH users and non-users, and stakeholders within the health system and the non-governmental organisation sector. Realist focus groups will be used to collect data from community-level implementers. The analysis will be retroductive and use the context-mechanism-outcome configuration heuristic tool to represent generative causation. We will analyse data from intervention and comparator MWHs independently and compare the resulting refined programme theories. Data analysis will be done in NVivo 12. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the project has been obtained from the Mozambique National Bioethics Committee (CNBS-Comité Nacional de Bioética para a Saúde) and the University of Saskatchewan Bioethical Research Ethics Board. The evaluation will adhere to the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and the African adaptation of evaluation ethics and principles. Evaluation results will be disseminated to stakeholders' practice audiences through peer-reviewed publications, plain-language briefs, theory validation/feedback meetings and conference presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.