ArticleBMJ global health2025
A scoping review of person-centred maternity care service in humanitarian and fragile settings.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWomen who live in humanitarian settings are three times more likely to die than those who live in peaceful environments. Person-centred maternity care (PCMC) is a fundamental human right for every woman, yet it is often overlooked in humanitarian contexts. This scoping review aims to summarise person-centred maternity healthcare in fragile and humanitarian contexts.
methodsA scoping review of quantitative and/or qualitative approach was conducted to assess person-centred maternity care in humanitarian settings. Research that assessed dimensions of PCMC such as autonomy, dignity, privacy, communication, confidentiality and supportive care was included. Electronic database searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus and generic web searches (Google Scholar) were used to search for available evidence. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses criteria for scoping review statement. The data from the final selected articles were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet. Finally, we described the study characteristics and summarised the concept of person-centred care.
resultA total of 889 articles were identified. After exclusion by title and abstract, 71 articles were eligible for full-text review, and finally 16 articles were eligible for data extraction. Our findings revealed low respect and supportive care, poor communication and autonomy, and breach of privacy. Resource constraints, protracted insecurity, cultural and language barriers were attributed to poor person-centred sexual and reproductive health. The review identified several implemented interventions, including training for healthcare providers, access to language translators, social and cultural support programmes, free healthcare services and community engagement initiatives.
conclusionThere are significantly more reports of negative experiences of maternity healthcare services than positive ones. Prioritising culturally appropriate approach, simulation-based training for healthcare providers on person-centred care, community engagement and the integration of PCMC domains into existing health services are essential to improve quality maternal health.
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.