ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Qualitative application of the diffusion of innovation theory to maternity waiting homes in rural Zambia.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02620436 (Increasing Equitable Access to Safe Deliveries in Zambia), which is not on this 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.
Increasing Equitable Access to Safe Deliveries in Zambia
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding factors affecting adoption of an innovation is critical to its long-term success. Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) increase access to facility-based delivery in low-resourced settings; yet, quality issues deter utilization of this innovative approach. We sought to understand how attributes that are thought to promote diffusion of innovations (e.g., relative advantage, compatibility, observability, complexity, etc.) affected MWH use after implementation of an improved quality MWH model in rural Zambia compared to standard of care.
methodsWe conducted 158 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with randomly selected rural-living women who had delivered a baby in the prior 12 months. Half lived in catchment areas where new quality MWHs were constructed, half in catchment areas with standard of care (ranging from low quality community structures to no MWH). We applied content analysis to identify themes.
resultsUtilization of MWHs was higher among intervention (65.4%) than control women (42.5%). Respondents in both study arms perceived relative advantages to pregnant women staying at MWHs compared to going directly to health facilities when labor begins. MWH stays allowed for clinical staff to routinely check on and educate women, and address complications immediately. Compatibility of the homes with cultural values and needs depended on implementation. While some women from intervention sites complained about overcrowding, women in control sites more often perceived the lack of cleanliness, amenities, and safety as deterrents to utilization. Women at intervention sites received sensitization about MWHs from a wider range of sources, including traditional leaders. Required preparations needed to stay at MWHs (e.g. delivery supplies, food, and childcare) made adoption complex and may have deterred utilization.
conclusionsThe improved MWH model addressed most community concerns around quality. Having opinion leaders who communicate the relative advantage of MWHs to pregnant women and their social networks may facilitate MWH utilization. The complexity of decisions and resources needed to stay at MWHs remains a critical barrier to use. To facilitate equitable adoption of MWHs among the most vulnerable women, planners should explore how to support women during their delivery preparations and MWH stays, particularly regarding food security and lack of social support for childcare.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT02620436, Registered 02 December 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02620436?term=NCT02620436&rank=1.
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.