Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40086802›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2025

Identifying health outcomes and future research directions of group antenatal care among adolescents in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Theresa Norpeli Lanyo, Jody R Lori

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Theresa Norpeli Lanyo *Women and Children, University of Ghana Medical Centre, Accra, Ghana lanyot@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3551-3207
Jody R Lori *School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High maternal mortality and morbidity in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is a significant global concern, especially among adolescents due to the high birth rates. Providing quality antenatal care, such as group antenatal care (GANC), is vital for enhancing maternal and newborn health outcomes for adolescents. Research indicates that GANC has a positive impact on maternal health outcomes for pregnant women in general. However, there is a notable gap in studies that specifically examine its effects on adolescents in LMICs. This scoping review, following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, examines the impact of GANC versus individualised antenatal care for pregnant adolescents. After a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed literature, eight articles were included. Findings demonstrate that GANC leads to better adherence to care, increased empowerment through knowledge, enhanced social support and improved newborn health quality. However, there is a notable scarcity of research on GANC for adolescents in LMICs, highlighting the need for further studies to inform policy to create, implement and possibly scale up adolescent-friendly GANC. The insights gained from this review can be leveraged for further feasibility studies to explore cultural appropriateness, adolescent responsiveness and adolescent preferences for GANC.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPregnancy in AdolescencePrenatal CareAdolescentFemaleHumansPregnancyGlobal HealthMaternal healthPublic HealthReview

Identifiers

PMID40086802
PMCPMC11907052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.