ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Using human-centered design to re-vision the emergency obstetric and newborn care framework: Insights from Bangladesh, Malawi and Senegal.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The development of proxy indicators to measure workforce well-being in emergency obstetric and neonatal care settings.Journal of global health · 2025Pooled it
- Competency gaps in emergency obstetric and neonatal care: Assessing knowledge, skills, and confidence in the use of magnesium sulfate among providers in Malawi.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (EmONC) Framework has been instrumental in helping countries plan and monitor maternal health services for over 20 years. Given evolving health systems, the changing expectations of both patients and health providers, and the expanded evidence base, the "Re-Visioning EmONC" project was initiated to update this framework to better meet countries' needs. To understand the needs of its primary intended users, the project used human-centered design (HCD) to conduct in-depth studies in three countries with extensive experience using the EmONC Framework: Bangladesh, Malawi, and Senegal. The study employed HCD methods to conduct interviews, focus groups, and consultative workshops with 337 participants (e.g., health managers, health providers, and service users) across the three countries. Each country team developed their own themes to explore within the boundaries of the overall Re-Visioning EmONC project's global objectives and developed unique generative activities based on the primary research questions and the category of participants. Multi-stage data analysis was conducted using affinity diagrams and either atlas.ti or Nvivo. Seven key cross-country insights emerged that together can be summarized as follows: when health systems fail, the burden of accessing and providing EmONC shifts to individuals - women, families, and health providers - who must improvise solutions, leading not only to poor quality of care, but also to huge out of pocket expenses, poor wellbeing and a profound mistrust in each other and in the system. The insights informed revisions to the EmONC Framework, including enhanced guidance on context-specific planning, new indicators for facility readiness, incorporation of workforce wellbeing, and increased focus on integrated maternal-newborn care. The HCD approach enabled meaningful integration of user perspectives into the revised EmONC Framework. The revised framework provides a roadmap for strengthening health systems and improving outcomes for women with obstetric complications and small and sick newborns.
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.