Dataset Information

What Prevents Quality Midwifery Care? A Systematic Mapping of Barriers in Low and Middle Income Countries from the Provider Perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality of care is essential for further progress in reducing maternal and newborn deaths. The integration of educated, trained, regulated and licensed midwives into the health system is associated with improved quality of care and sustained decreases in maternal and newborn mortality. To date, research on barriers to quality of care for women and newborns has not given due attention to the care provider's perspective. This paper addresses this gap by presenting the findings of a systematic mapping of the literature of the social, economic and professional barriers preventing midwifery personnel in low and middle income countries (LMICs) from providing quality of care.

Methods and findings

A systematic search of five electronic databases for literature published between January 1990 and August 2013. Eligible items included published and unpublished items in all languages. Items were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielding 82 items from 34 countries. 44% discussed countries or regions in Africa, 38% in Asia, and 5% in the Americas. Nearly half the articles were published since 2011. Data was extracted and presented in a narrative synthesis and tables. Items were organized into three categories; social; economic and professional barriers, based on an analytical framework. Barriers connected to the socially and culturally constructed context of childbirth, although least reported, appear instrumental in preventing quality midwifery care.

Conclusions

Significant social and cultural, economic and professional barriers can prevent the provision of quality midwifery care in LMICs. An analytical framework is proposed to show how the overlaps between the barriers reinforce each other, and that they arise from gender inequality. Links are made between burn out and moral distress, caused by the barriers, and poor quality care. Ongoing mechanisms to improve quality care will need to address the barriers from the midwifery provider perspective, as well as the underlying gender inequality.

SUBMITTER: Filby A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4852911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice.AimTo identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies.MethodsA descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6-month, multi-phase, intensive evidence-based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy.ResultsA total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence-based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process-related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers.Linking evidence to actionContext-specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low-cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness-raising, workplace culture, and practice-transforming strategy for evidence implementation.

Project description:Childhood malnutrition is associated with high morbidity and mortality globally1. Undernourished children are more likely to experience cognitive, physical, and metabolic developmental impairments that can lead to later cardiovascular disease, reduced intellectual ability and school attainment, and reduced economic productivity in adulthood2. Child growth failure (CGF), expressed as stunting, wasting, and underweight in children under five years of age (0-59 months), is a specific subset of undernutrition characterized by insufficient height or weight against age-specific growth reference standards3-5. The prevalence of stunting, wasting, or underweight in children under five is the proportion of children with a height-for-age, weight-for-height, or weight-for-age z-score, respectively, that is more than two standard deviations below the World Health Organization's median growth reference standards for a healthy population6. Subnational estimates of CGF report substantial heterogeneity within countries, but are available primarily at the first administrative level (for example, states or provinces)7; the uneven geographical distribution of CGF has motivated further calls for assessments that can match the local scale of many public health programmes8. Building from our previous work mapping CGF in Africa9, here we provide the first, to our knowledge, mapped high-spatial-resolution estimates of CGF indicators from 2000 to 2017 across 105 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 99% of affected children live1, aggregated to policy-relevant first and second (for example, districts or counties) administrative-level units and national levels. Despite remarkable declines over the study period, many LMICs remain far from the ambitious World Health Organization Global Nutrition Targets to reduce stunting by 40% and wasting to less than 5% by 2025. Large disparities in prevalence and progress exist across and within countries; our maps identify high-prevalence areas even within nations otherwise succeeding in reducing overall CGF prevalence. By highlighting where the highest-need populations reside, these geospatial estimates can support policy-makers in planning interventions that are adapted locally and in efficiently directing resources towards reducing CGF and its health implications.

Project description:Background and methodsTo guide achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, we used the Lives Saved Tool to provide a novel simulation of potential maternal, fetal, and newborn lives and costs saved by scaling up midwifery and obstetrics services, including family planning, in 58 low- and middle-income countries. Typical midwifery and obstetrics interventions were scaled to either 60% of the national population (modest coverage) or 99% (universal coverage).FindingsUnder even a modest scale-up, midwifery services including family planning reduce maternal, fetal, and neonatal deaths by 34%. Increasing midwifery alone or integrated with obstetrics is more cost-effective than scaling up obstetrics alone; when family planning was included, the midwifery model was almost twice as cost-effective as the obstetrics model, at $2,200 versus $4,200 per death averted. The most effective strategy was the most comprehensive: increasing midwives, obstetricians, and family planning could prevent 69% of total deaths under universal scale-up, yielding a cost per death prevented of just $2,100. Within this analysis, the interventions which midwifery and obstetrics are poised to deliver most effectively are different, with midwifery benefits delivered across the continuum of pre-pregnancy, prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum-postnatal care, and obstetrics benefits focused mostly on delivery. Including family planning within each scope of practice reduced the number of likely births, and thus deaths, and increased the cost-effectiveness of the entire package (e.g., a 52% reduction in deaths with midwifery and obstetrics increased to 69% when family planning was added; cost decreased from $4,000 to $2,100 per death averted).ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that scaling up midwifery and obstetrics could bring many countries closer to achieving mortality reductions. Midwives alone can achieve remarkable mortality reductions, particularly when they also perform family planning services--the greatest return on investment occurs with the scale-up of midwives and obstetricians together.

Project description:BackgroundInadequate health-care provider performance is a major challenge to the delivery of high-quality health care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of strategies to improve health-care provider performance in LMICs.MethodsFor this systematic review we searched 52 electronic databases for published studies and 58 document inventories for unpublished studies from the 1960s to 2016. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. We only included strategy-versus-control group comparisons. We present results of improving health-care provider practice outcomes expressed as percentages (eg, percentage of patients treated correctly) or as continuous measures (eg, number of medicines prescribed per patient). Effect sizes were calculated as absolute percentage-point changes. The summary measure for each comparison was the median effect size (MES) for all primary outcomes. Strategy effectiveness was described with weighted medians of MES. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016046154.FindingsWe screened 216 477 citations and selected 670 reports from 337 studies of 118 strategies. Most strategies had multiple intervention components. For professional health-care providers (generally, facility-based health workers), the effects were near zero for only implementing a technology-based strategy (median MES 1·0 percentage points, IQR -2·8 to 9·9) or only providing printed information for health-care providers (1·4 percentage points, -4·8 to 6·2). For percentage outcomes, training or supervision alone typically had moderate effects (10·3-15·9 percentage points), whereas combining training and supervision had somewhat larger effects than use of either strategy alone (18·0-18·8 percentage points). Group problem solving alone showed large improvements in percentage outcomes (28·0-37·5 percentage points), but, when the strategy definition was broadened to include group problem solving alone or other strategy components, moderate effects were more typical (12·1 percentage points). Several multifaceted strategies had large effects, but multifaceted strategies were not always more effective than simpler ones. For lay health-care providers (generally, community health workers), the effect of training alone was small (2·4 percentage points). Strategies with larger effect sizes included community support plus health-care provider training (8·2-125·0 percentage points). Contextual and methodological heterogeneity made comparisons difficult, and most strategies had low quality evidence.InterpretationThe impact of strategies to improve health-care provider practices varied substantially, although some approaches were more consistently effective than others. The breadth of the HCPPR makes its results valuable to decision makers for informing the selection of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in LMICs. These results also emphasise the need for researchers to use better methods to study the effectiveness of interventions.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC Foundation.