ArticlePloS one2024
Screening and treatment practices for iron deficiency in anaemic pregnant women: A cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers in Nigeria.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy is a significant contributor to maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality globally. Despite international and national guidelines for its screening and treatment, knowledge and prescription practices of healthcare providers vary.
aimTo determine maternal healthcare workers' screening and treatment practices for iron deficiency in anaemic pregnancy women in two states in Nigeria. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional study sampled maternal healthcare workers from 84 randomly selected public health facilities in Lagos and Kano States. Data on methods of diagnosis and prescription practices for iron deficiency anaemia were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. Means and percentages were reported using probability weights, and a comparison of practices of anaemia treatment between doctors and nurses/midwives was done using Chi-square test or Fishers exact.
resultsOf the 467 maternal healthcare workers surveyed (232 from Lagos, 235 from Kano), 40.0% were doctors, 54.0% nurses or midwives and 6.0% community health extension workers. In the sample, 27.6% always and 58.7% sometimes screened anaemic pregnant women for iron deficiency; among these, 84.7% screened using complete blood count. Oral iron for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia was prescribed by 96.9%. Intravenous iron for treatment was prescribed by 30.2%, but by only by 18.6% as first-line drug (as iron dextran by 69.3% and as iron sucrose by 31.5% of intravenous iron prescribers). Commonest reasons for low usage of intravenous iron were cost and need for venepuncture. Fifty-three percent of maternal healthcare workers' prescribed iron supplements for anaemia during concomitant infection, with the prescription practice similar among doctors versus nurse/midwives (p = 0.074).
conclusionWe found suboptimal levels of screening for iron deficiency among anaemic pregnant women. Iron deficiency anaemia in pregnancy is almost exclusively treated with oral iron by maternal healthcare workers in the two Nigerian states, similarly between doctors and nurses/midwives. Further research into potential reasons for low screening for iron deficiency and low use of intravenous iron 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.