Vandana Tripathi1. 1. Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; EngenderHealth, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: vtripathi@engenderhealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strengthening measurement of the quality of labor and delivery (L&D) care in low-resource countries requires an understanding of existing approaches. OBJECTIVES: To identify quantitative indicators of L&D care quality and assess gaps in indicators. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Embase databases were searched for research published in English between January 1, 1990, and October 31, 2013, using structured terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies describing indicators for L&D care quality assessment were included. Those whose abstracts contained inclusion criteria underwent full-text review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study characteristics, including indicator selection and data sources, were extracted via a standard spreadsheet. MAIN RESULTS: The structured search identified 1224 studies. After abstract and full-text review, 477 were included in the analysis. Most studies selected indicators by using literature review, clinical guidelines, or expert panels. Few indicators were empirically validated; most studies relied on medical record review to measure indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Many quantitative indicators have been used to measure L&D care quality, but few have been validated beyond expert opinion. There has been limited use of clinical observation in quality assessment of care processes. The findings suggest the need for validated, efficient consensus indicators of the quality of L&D care processes, particularly in low-resource countries.
BACKGROUND: Strengthening measurement of the quality of labor and delivery (L&D) care in low-resource countries requires an understanding of existing approaches. OBJECTIVES: To identify quantitative indicators of L&D care quality and assess gaps in indicators. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Embase databases were searched for research published in English between January 1, 1990, and October 31, 2013, using structured terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies describing indicators for L&D care quality assessment were included. Those whose abstracts contained inclusion criteria underwent full-text review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study characteristics, including indicator selection and data sources, were extracted via a standard spreadsheet. MAIN RESULTS: The structured search identified 1224 studies. After abstract and full-text review, 477 were included in the analysis. Most studies selected indicators by using literature review, clinical guidelines, or expert panels. Few indicators were empirically validated; most studies relied on medical record review to measure indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Many quantitative indicators have been used to measure L&D care quality, but few have been validated beyond expert opinion. There has been limited use of clinical observation in quality assessment of care processes. The findings suggest the need for validated, efficient consensus indicators of the quality of L&D care processes, particularly in low-resource countries.
Authors: Danielle Wilhelm; Julia Lohmann; Manuela De Allegri; Jobiba Chinkhumba; Adamson S Muula; Stephan Brenner Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Tieba Millogo; Raïssa Kadidiatou Kourouma; Bertrand Ivlabéhiré Méda; Marie Laurette Agbre-Yace; Abdul Dosso; Maurice W E Yaméogo; Seni Kouanda Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Natasha Housseine; Marieke C Punt; Ali Gharib Mohamed; Said Mzee Said; Nanna Maaløe; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Tarek Meguid; Arie Franx; Diederick E Grobbee; Joyce L Browne; Marcus J Rijken Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 3.223