BackgroundDespite growing recognition of neglectful, abusive, and disrespectful treatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, there is no consensus at a global level on how these occurrences are defined and measured. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence on the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities to inform the development of an evidence-based typology of the phenomenon.Methods and FindingsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases and grey literature using a predetermined search strategy to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on the mistreatment of women during childbirth across all geographical and income-level settings. We used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesize the qualitative evidence and assessed the confidence in the qualitative review findings using the CERQual approach. In total, 65 studies were included from 34 countries. Qualitative findings were organized under seven domains: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) verbal abuse, (4) stigma and discrimination, (5) failure to meet professional standards of care, (6) poor rapport between women and providers, and (7) health system conditions and constraints. Due to high heterogeneity of the quantitative data, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; instead, we present descriptions of study characteristics, outcome measures, and results. Additional themes identified in the quantitative studies are integrated into the typology.ConclusionsThis systematic review presents a comprehensive, evidence-based typology of the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, and demonstrates that mistreatment can occur at the level of interaction between the woman and provider, as well as through systemic failures at the health facility and health system levels. We propose this typology be adopted to describe the phenomenon and be used to develop measurement tools and inform future research, programs, and interventions.
High-quality obstetric delivery in a health facility reduces maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. This systematic review synthesizes qualitative evidence related to the facilitators and barriers to delivering at health facilities in low- and middle-income countries. We aim to provide a useful framework for better understanding how various factors influence the decision-making process and the ultimate location of delivery at a facility or elsewhere. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL and gray literature databases. Study quality was evaluated using the CASP checklist. The confidence in the findings was assessed using the CERQual method. Thirty-four studies from 17 countries were included. Findings were organized under four broad themes: (1) perceptions of pregnancy and childbirth; (2) influence of sociocultural context and care experiences; (3) resource availability and access; (4) perceptions of quality of care. Key barriers to facility-based delivery include traditional and familial influences, distance to the facility, cost of delivery, and low perceived quality of care and fear of discrimination during facility-based delivery. The emphasis placed on increasing facility-based deliveries by public health entities has led women and their families to believe that childbirth has become medicalized and dehumanized. When faced with the prospect of facility birth, women in low- and middle-income countries may fear various undesirable procedures, and may prefer to deliver at home with a traditional birth attendant. Given the abundant reports of disrespectful and abusive obstetric care highlighted by this synthesis, future research should focus on achieving respectful, non-abusive, and high-quality obstetric care for all women. Funding for this project was provided by The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1742-4755-11-71) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Objective: To explore what "quality of care" means to childbearing women in Nigeria and Uganda, as a means of ensuring that women's voices and opinions are prioritized when developing interventions to improve quality in maternity care provision. Methods:Qualitative methods, with a purposive sample of women in Nigeria and Uganda. Participants were asked to define quality of care and to provide examples of when it was and was not provided. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings based on an a priori framework (the WHO quality of care framework).Results: 132 in-depth interviews and 21 focus group discussions are included.Participants spontaneously discussed each of the WHO framework domains of quality of care. Data were richest across the domains of effective communication, respect and dignity, emotional support, competent and motivated human resources, and essential physical resources. Women believed that good quality of care ensured optimal psychological and physiological outcomes for the woman and her baby. Positive interpersonal relationships between women and health providers were important. These included supportive care, building rapport, and using positive and clear language. Conclusion:To provide good quality of care, maternity services should consider and act on the expectations and experiences of women and their families.
Background Higher education attainment is linked to improved health and employment outcomes but the impact of university students’ experiences of menstruation on their education is less clear. The objective of this review was to synthesise qualitative and quantitative research on university students’ menstrual experiences and educational impacts. Methods Eligible studies were identified through systematic searching across eight peer-reviewed databases, websites for menstrual health organisations, grey literature databases, and reference lists of included studies. Eligible studies must have reported on at least one of the antecedents or components of menstrual experience outlined in the integrated model of menstrual experience in relation to university students or reported on the impact of their menstrual experiences on their education. Study characteristics and findings were extracted, analysed and presented as a narrative synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42020178470. Results Eighty-three studies were eligible for inclusion. Most studies (n = 74; 89%) were quantitative and the highest proportion of studies were conducted in lower-middle-income countries (n = 31; 37%). Self-reported dysmenorrhea, other physical and emotional menstrual-related symptoms, and menstrual stigma contributed to negative menstrual experiences among female students. Very few studies considered the menstrual experiences of non-binary and transgender menstruating students, and culturally diverse students. Dysmenorrhea contributed to university absenteeism, impaired participation and concentration, and declining academic performance. Inadequate sanitation facilities for menstrual management and challenges containing menstruation also negatively impacted education. Conclusions Female university students’ experiences of menstruation can negatively impact their education, highlighting the need for program and policy responses at university to improve students’ wellbeing and educational engagement. Further research on the menstrual experiences of gender diverse, migrant and international students is needed as there is insufficient evidence to date.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.