ArticlePloS one2026
Integrated versus standalone home-based records for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health in Nepal: A comparative qualitative study with descriptive quantitative profiling.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHome-Based Records (HBRs) are personal health documents intended to improve continuity of care and caregiver engagement across reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) services. In Nepal, both standalone (sHBR) and integrated (iHBR) models are implemented, yet comparative evidence on their utilization and implementation challenges is limited. This study examined utilization patterns and system-level barriers associated with sHBR in Madhesh Province and iHBR in Koshi Province.
methodsWe conducted a comparative qualitative study with descriptive quantitative profiling between May 17 and August 27, 2024. A total of 100 semi-structured in-depth interviews were completed with caregivers, health workers, Female Community Health Volunteers, and program managers across two provinces. The study applied "kuragraphy," an ethnographic approach integrating interviews and field observations to construct contextual case narratives. Socio-demographic data were analyzed descriptively using the statistical package for the social Sciences (SPSS). Informed by the Human Centered Design (HCD) approach, the qualitative data were thematically analyzed in Excel using the Journey to Health and Immunization (JTHI) framework.
resultsCaregivers widely perceived HBRs as essential documents, primarily for immunization tracking and future service access. The iHBR was viewed as more comprehensive and user-friendly, particularly due to its illustrations, which improved comprehension among low-literacy users. However, understanding remained limited among illiterate and marginalized populations. Family involvement in record management was minimal and largely confined to mothers. Implementation barriers included inadequate training - particularly for iHBR use, limited decision-making authority among frontline health workers, incomplete documentation of non-immunization components, poor material quality of sHBR, and concerns regarding the sustainability of donor-supported iHBR initiatives.
conclusionHBR utilization in Nepal is shaped by caregiver literacy, gender dynamics, and health-system readiness. Strengthening training, supportive supervision, user-centered design, and sustainable supply mechanisms will be essential to optimize HBR effectiveness and support equitable RMNCH service delivery.
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.