Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39314117›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2024

'

Brenda Sequeira D'mello, Natasha Housseine, Hussein Lesio Kidanto, Nanna Maaløe, Jos van Roosmalen, Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch, Thomas van den Akker, Zainab Muniro, Evance Polin, Nuswe Ambokile and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2025
    Article
  9. 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

13 authors.

Brenda Sequeira D'melloMaternal and Newborn Healthcare, Comprehensive Community Based Rehabilitation in Tanzania (CCBRT), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-1550-248X
Natasha HousseineMedical College, East Africa, Aga Khan University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Hussein Lesio KidantoMedical College, East Africa, Aga Khan University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Nanna MaaløeGlobal Health Section, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jos van RoosmalenAthena Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dan Wolf MeyrowitschGlobal Health Section, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas van den AkkerAthena Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zainab MuniroHealth Management Team, Temeke Regional Referral Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Evance PolinHealth Management Team, Temeke Regional Referral Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Nuswe AmbokileHealth Management Team, Temeke Regional Referral Hospital, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Charles FestoData Analytics, Ifakara Health Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Jane Brandt SørensenGlobal Health Section, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
David SandoManagement and Development for Health (MDH), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Maternal Health ServicesRespectAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansPatient SatisfactionPregnancyQuality of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTanzaniaDar es Salaamdisrespect and abuseexperience of caremeasurement toolmistreatmentPerson-centered maternity carerespectful maternity careurban health

Identifiers

PMID39314117
PMCPMC11423523

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.