SynthesisF1000Research2024
Incentives for pregnant mothers during antenatal care for better maternal and neonatal health outcomes in low and middle income countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Universal access to maternal, newborn, and child healthcare is essential for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3, but the effectiveness of various incentive-based programs for pregnant mothers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains uncertain. Objective of this systematic review was to determine if incentive-based interventions influenced maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Methods: We conducted a search in various databases from inception. All incentive-based interventional studies conducted on pregnant women in LMICs were included. Evidence from the included trials was synthesized using risk ratios (RRs) to compare the outcomes between groups receiving incentives and not receiving incentives. The meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and reviewed the collected data to determine its suitability for meta-analysis. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021247681). Results: Of the 3,897 records that were identified, 11 met eligibility criteria, all of which exhibited varying degrees of risk of bias, ranging from high to some concerns. Analysis of maternal outcomes across studies revealed no significant differences in the likelihood of delivering at a healthcare facility (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.47) and in frequency of prenatal care (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.12) between intervention and control groups. However, high levels of statistical heterogeneity were observed for both outcomes indicating variability among study results. Similarly, analysis of tetanus vaccine coverage showed no significant difference between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.08), with moderate statistical heterogeneity observed. Conclusion: The maternal and neonatal outcomes examined in this review did not have any significant differences in intervention group when compared to the control group. The interventions to address maternal health concerns need to follow a multifactorial approach. There is a need for extensive primary research studies in the future.
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.