ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Evaluation of a participatory action project to improve safety and outcomes in maternity care.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaternal violence, in terms of obstetric violence and/or the disrespect and abuse of women and birthing people accessing maternity care, is a global concern. This mistreatment and experience of maternal violence and harm has negative physical and psychological impacts on women, birthing people and their babies. This paper evaluates a multipartner project which aimed to co-produce specialist resources to support women and birthing people who had experienced violence and harm. The evaluation sought to understand the collaborative and co-production processes employed and to identify recommendations and learning from the project.
methodsAn ethnographic-based evaluation based on action research and participatory action research principles was undertaken using qualitative interviews, documentary review and observations. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 18 interviews were conducted with 21 participants from the lead, project partner and onward grant recipient organizations. In addition, 80 documents were reviewed, and 9 collaborative group meetings and 2 in-person events were observed. Factors which supported and inhibited effective collaborative working and co-production were identified in five aspects: ensuring inclusivity, clarity and transparency, building and maintaining relationships, collaboration and cooperation and active learning.
conclusionsEffective collaborative co-production needs to consider issues of inclusivity and diversity and to ensure clarity and transparency in terms of remit, commitments and finances. Building and maintaining relationships between partners and communities by creating a safe space for participation and inclusive leadership was crucial. Recommendations from the evaluation include the need to ensure mechanisms for clear communication within projects from their inception as well as the need to acknowledge and proactively address issues of diversity and inclusivity throughout all aspects of the co-production process to support the fullest participation from diverse stakeholders.
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.