Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41602864›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2025

Seeking digital maternity healthcare during the pandemic health system shock: a systematic review of women's experiences in low- and middle-income countries.

Tisha Dasgupta, Emily Russell, Camila Carbajal, Gillian Horgan, Lili Peterson, Hiten D Mistry, Rachael Buabeng, Milly Wilson, Valerie Smith, Harriet Boulding and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in reproductive 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Tisha Dasgupta *Department of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emily Russell *Department of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Camila CarbajalDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gillian HorganDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lili PetersonDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hiten D MistryDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rachael BuabengThe RESILIENT Study Patient & Public Involvement & Engagement Advisory Group, United Kingdom.
Milly WilsonDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Health Systems, College of Health and Agricultural Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Harriet BouldingThe Policy Institute, Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kayleigh S SheenDepartment of Social Sciences, College of Health, Science and Society, University of the West of United Kingdom Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Aricca D Van CittersThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States.
Eugene C NelsonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States.
Emma L DuncanDepartment of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter von DadelszenDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
RESILIENT Study Group
Sergio A SilverioDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Laura A MageeDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The pandemic created global disruption acting as a health system shock not seen before in living memory. As a consequence, there were significant implications for healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries. Challenges such as lockdown restrictions created substantial modifications to the delivery of maternity care. This review aims to explore the experiences of maternity care by women, specifically in low- and middle-income countries, during the pandemic global health system shock. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for qualitative literature published about maternity healthcare experiences during the pandemic. Studies which provided qualitative data on women's experiences of digital healthcare, and other maternity care reconfigurations in low- and middle-income countries were included. The studies underwent quality assessment using twelve criteria adapted from the quality appraisal tool developed by the Evidence for Policy & Practice Information (EPPI) Centre. Thematic synthesis was employed. Results: Of the 21,860 records identified, 30 met the inclusion criteria for this review. Across the 4 key predetermined areas of study: (1) Care seeking and experience; (2) Digital health; (3) Vaccination; and (4) Ethical future of maternity services; 10 concepts were reported upon, namely: (1.1) Emotional challenges and uncertainty, (1.2) Disruption of services, (1.3) Stigma and discrimination, and (1.4) Changing support systems; (2.1) Safety and reassurance, (2.2) Locus of responsibility; (3.1) Vaccine understanding and acceptance; and (4.1) Improvements for maternity care delivery, (4.2) Implementation of virtual care, (4.3) Education and empowerment. Conclusion: Our findings suggest emotional challenges, isolation, and limited access to maternity services were prominent among pregnant individuals in low- and middle-income countries. This synthesis provides insights into how pandemic associated adaptations, which have been retained beyond, such as digital health solutions were experienced by women within constrained health systems, revealing both opportunities and persistent gaps in digital health access and equity. Although a review of low- and middle-income countries-there is learning to be taken from these settings which could easily be applied not only across low- and middle-income countries, but also in high-income settings, in the form of reverse (or "trickle-up") innovation to improve maternity care as we recover and re-build from the pandemic and offer more resilient ways of providing maternity care through future health system shocks.

Indexed as

COVID-19digital healthLMICmaternity carepregnancyqualitative researchsystematic reviewwomen

Identifiers

PMID41602864
PMCPMC12833275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.