ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Health professionals' experiences and views on obstetric ultrasound in Tanzania: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adaptive Fast-Slow Large Language Model Framework for Multidimensional Classification of Prenatal Ultrasound Reports: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstetric ultrasound is considered important for determining gestational age, identifying single or multiple pregnancies, locating the placenta and fetal anomalies and monitoring fetal growth and pregnancy-related complications in order to improve patient management.
objectivesTo explore health professionals' perspectives on different aspects of obstetric ultrasound in Tanzania regarding self-reported skills in performing ultrasound examinations and what could improve access to and utilization of obstetric ultrasound in the clinical setting.
designCross-sectional study. MATERIAL AND
methodsData was collected between November and December 2017 using a questionnaire based on previous qualitative research results from the CROss Country UltraSound Study (CROCUS Study). Seventeen healthcare facilities in 5 urban and semiurban municipalities in the Dar-es-Salaam region were included, with 636 health professionals participating (physicians,
resultsMost health professionals (82% physicians, 81% midwives/nurses) believed that obstetric ultrasound was decisive in the clinical management of pregnancy. Results indicate proficiency gaps across disciplines: 51% of physicians and 48.8% of midwives/nurses reported no or low-level skills in assessing cervical length. Similarly, deficiencies were observed in evaluating the four-chamber view of the fetal heart (physicians: 51%, midwives/nurses: 61%), aorta, pulmonary artery (physicians: 60.5%, midwives/nurses: 65%) and Doppler assessments (umbilical artery: physicians 60.6%, midwives/nurses 56.1%). Compared to midwives/nurses, physicians were significantly more likely to agree or strongly agree that utilization would improve with more ultrasound machines (odds ratio (OR) 2.13; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.26-3.61), better quality of ultrasound machines (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.10-4.69), more training for health professionals currently performing ultrasound (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.08-4.17) and more physicians trained in ultrasound (OR 2.51; 95% CI 1.30-4.87).
conclusionsImproving the provision of obstetric ultrasound examinations in Tanzania requires more and better-quality ultrasound machines, enhanced training for health professionals and an increased number of physicians trained in ultrasound use. To further increase the accessibility and utilization of obstetric ultrasound in maternity care in Tanzania, it is essential to provide training for midwives in basic obstetric ultrasound techniques.
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.