ArticleGlobal health action2024
'
Article in Global health action, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cocreation and codesign in maternal health: processes, outcomes and implementation challenges.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Pooled it
- Women's reported experience of respectful maternity care measures worldwide: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Women's perspectives on gestational diabetes mellitus screening services during antenatal care in Tanzania.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Antenatal care utilisation among pregnant adolescents in urban Ghana: a qualitative study of individual, family and health system influences.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Translation, cultural adaptation, and psychometric validation of the Malay version of the Disrespect and Mistreatment During Childbirth Questionnaire.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Coadaptation and implementation of intrapartum clinical guidelines to save lives during childbirth: Protocol for an adapted PartoMa intervention in Eastern Ethiopia.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- 'One woman, one bed': prevalence and factors associated with women's experiences of respectful birth in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - across-sectional survey.Global health action · 2025Article
- Promoting respectful maternity care with the WHO labor care guide and the checklist mnemonic "COPE": A quality improvement project.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Toward consensus: a Delphi study on the core principles and indicators of respectful maternity care.Reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRights-based Respectful Maternity Care (RMC) is crucial for quality of care and improved birth outcomes, yet RMC measurements are rarely included in facility improvement initiatives. We aimed to (i) co-create a routine RMC measurement tool (RMC-T) for congested maternity units in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and (ii) assess the RMC-T's acceptability among women and healthcare stakeholders.
methodWe employed a participatory approach utilizing multiple mixed methods. This included a scoping review, stakeholder engagement involving postnatal women, healthcare providers, health leadership, and global researchers through interviews, focus groups, and two surveys involving 201 and 838 postnatal women. Cronbach's alpha and factor analysis were conducted for validation using Stata 15. Theories of social practice and Thematic Framework of Acceptability guided the assessment of stakeholder priorities and tool acceptability.
resultsThe multi-phased iterative co-creation process produced the 25-question RMC-T that measures satisfaction, communication, mistreatment (including physical, verbal, and sexual abuse; neglect; discrimination; lack of privacy; unconsented care; post-birth clean-up; informal payments; and denial of care), supportive care (such as food intake and mobility), birth companionship, post-procedure pain relief, bed-sharing, and newborn respect. The pragmatic validation process prioritized stakeholder feedback over strict statistics, lowering Cronbach's alpha from 0.70 in version 1 to 0.57 for the RMC-T. Women valued the opportunity to share their experiences.
conclusionsThe RMC-T is contextualized, validated, and acceptable for measuring women's experiences of RMC. Routine use in facility-based quality improvement initiatives, along with targeted actions to address gaps, will advance rights-based RMC. Further validation and community-based studies are needed.
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.