IntroductionExperts agree that male involvement in maternal health is a multifaceted concept, but a robust assessment is lacking, hampering interpretation of the literature. This systematic review aims to examine the conceptualisation of male involvement in maternal health globally and review commonly used indicators.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched for quantitative literature (between the years 2000 and 2020) containing indicators representing male involvement in maternal health, which was defined as the involvement, participation, engagement or support of men in all activities related to maternal health.ResultsAfter full-text review, 282 studies were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in Africa (43%), followed by North America (23%), Asia (15%) and Europe (12%). Descriptive and text mining analysis showed male involvement has been conceptualised by focusing on two main aspects: psychosocial support and instrumental support for maternal health care utilisation. Differences in measurement and topics were noted according to continent with Africa focusing on HIV prevention, North America and Europe on psychosocial health and stress, and Asia on nutrition. One-third of studies used one single indicator and no common pattern of indicators could be identified. Antenatal care attendance was the most used indicator (40%), followed by financial support (17%), presence during childbirth (17%) and HIV testing (14%). Majority of studies did not collect data from men directly.DiscussionResearchers often focus on a single aspect of male involvement, resulting in a narrow set of indicators. Aspects such as communication, shared decision making and the subjective feeling of support have received little attention. We believe a broader holistic scope can broaden the potential of male involvement programmes and stimulate a gender-transformative approach. Further research is recommended to develop a robust and comprehensive set of indicators for assessing male involvement in maternal health.
Introduction Experts agree that male involvement (MI) in maternal health (MH) is a multifaceted concept, but a universal definition is lacking, hampering comparison of findings and interpretation of the literature. This systematic review aims to examine the conceptualization of MI in MH globally and critically review commonly used indicators. Methods PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched for quantitative literature (between the years 2000 and 2020) containing indicators or variables representing MI in MH, which was defined as the involvement, participation, engagement or support of men in all activities related to maternal health. Results After full text review, 282 studies were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in Africa (43%), followed by North America (23%), Asia (15%) and Europe (12%). Descriptive analysis and text mining analysis showed MI in MH has been conceptualised by focusing on two main aspects: psychosocial support and instrumental support for maternal health care utilisation. Differences in measurement and topics were noted according to continent with Africa focusing on HIV prevention, North America and Europe on psychosocial health and stress, and Asia on nutrition. One third of studies used one single indicator for assessing MI in MH and no common pattern of indicators could be identified. Antenatal care attendance was the most used indicator (40%) followed by financial support (17%), presence during childbirth (17%) and HIV testing (14%). Majority of studies did not collect data from men directly. Discussion Researchers often focus on a single aspect of MI in MH, resulting in the usage of a narrow and simplified set of indicators. Aspects such as communication between the couple, shared decision making, participation in household tasks and the subjective feeling of being supported have received little attention. We believe a more multidimensional approach can broaden the potential of MI programs. Further research, involving experts and pilot testing, is recommended to develop consensus regarding a more robust and comprehensive set of valid and feasible indicators for assessing MI in MH.
In the original published version of the above article, the authors' family and given names were incorrectly presented. The names were corrected and cited as, "Dehaene I, Van
Objective - To compare neonatal magnesemia in the first fifteen days of neonatal life between three groups: a control group not exposed to MgSO4, a neuroprotection group, and an eclampsia prevention group, and to explore its’ associations with child outcomes. Design - Retrospective single-centre cohort study. Setting - Tertiary care setting. Population - Infants admitted at the neonatal intensive care unit born between 24 and 32 weeks’ gestation, regardless of etiology of preterm birth.Methods - Linear mixed regression of neonatal magnesemia on exposure group and day of life. Generalised estimating equations models of child outcomes on neonatal magnesemia according to exposure group and day of life. Main outcome measures - Neonatal magnesemia (mmol/l). Results - Neonatal magnesemia is significantly higher in the preeclampsia group compared to the control and neuroprotection group. On the day of birth, this is irrespective of maternal magnesemia (preeclampsia vs control group), and the maternal total dose or duration of MgSO4 administration (preeclampsia vs neuroprotection group). No differences were found in short-term composite outcome between the three groups. Conclusions - We found mean differences in neonatal magnesemia between children not exposed to MgSO4 antenatally, children exposed for fetal neuroprotection, and children exposed for maternal eclampsia prevention. A 4g loading and 1g/h maintenance dose, for fetal neuroprotection and eclampsia prevention, appears to be safe on the short term for the neonate.
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.