ArticleBMC public health2026
Disability inclusion in maternal health services in Mozambique: a mixed-methods analysis of barriers experienced by women with disabilities.
Article in BMC public health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Sub-Saharan Africa, maternal health remains a significant public health challenge, and women with disabilities (WWD) experience profound inequities in access to essential healthcare services. In Mozambique, although national strategies promote disability inclusion, systemic and structural barriers continue to undermine equitable access to maternal health services. This study explores the intersection of maternal health and disability inclusion in Mozambique, identifying barriers faced by women with disabilities and opportunities to improve service accessibility and quality.
methodsA mixed-methods design was employed, integrating a desk review with stakeholder consultations and an interactive workshop. The desk review examined national policies and relevant literature on maternal health and disability inclusion in Mozambique. Stakeholder consultations were conducted via surveys across multiple regions, engaging WWD, healthcare providers, policymakers, and disability advocates. Key findings were validated and refined through participatory workshops involving diverse stakeholders. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while qualitative responses were thematically analysed.
resultsThe study found that women with disabilities in Mozambique face multifaceted barriers to maternal health, including inaccessible infrastructure, lack of adapted medical equipment, financial constraints, inadequate provider training, communication gaps and stigmatizing attitudes. Among 81 surveyed participants, over 80% reported physical and communication barriers as major obstacles, while 62% reported attitudinal barriers. Although some participants noted the existence of policies such as the National Action Plan for Disability and the Strategy for People with Disabilities in Public Services, their implementation was widely perceived as ineffective or insufficient in improving maternal health service accessibility for women with disabilities.
conclusionDisability inclusion within Mozambique's maternal health system remains limited, with policy commitments insufficiently translated into practice. Achieving equitable and inclusive maternal healthcare for women with disabilities in Mozambique requires sustained investment in accessible infrastructure, provider training, community engagement, and effective accountability mechanisms. Addressing these systemic barriers is critical to improving maternal health outcomes and advancing health equity for all women in Mozambique.
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.