Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Facilitators and barriers to quality of care in maternal, newborn and child health: a global situational analysis through metareview

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      ObjectiveConduct a global situational analysis to identify the current facilitators and barriers to improving quality of care (QoC) for pregnant women, newborns and children.Study designMetareview of published and unpublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted between January 2000 and March 2013 in any language. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.SettingsHealth systems of all countries. Study outcome: QoC measured using surrogate indicators––effective, efficient, accessible, acceptable/patient centred, equitable and safe.AnalysisConducted in two phases (1) qualitative synthesis of extracted data to identify and group the facilitators and barriers to improving QoC, for each of the three population groups, into the six domains of WHO's framework and explore new domains and (2) an analysis grid to map the common facilitators and barriers.ResultsWe included 98 systematic reviews with 110 interventions to improve QoC from countries globally. The facilitators and barriers identified fitted the six domains of WHO's framework––information, patient–population engagement, leadership, regulations and standards, organisational capacity and models of care. Two new domains, ‘communication’ and ‘satisfaction’, were generated. Facilitators included active and regular interpersonal communication between users and providers; respect, confidentiality, comfort and support during care provision; engaging users in decision-making; continuity of care and effective audit and feedback mechanisms. Key barriers identified were language barriers in information and communication; power difference between users and providers; health systems not accounting for user satisfaction; variable standards of implementation of standard guidelines; shortage of resources in health facilities and lack of studies assessing the role of leadership in improving QoC. These were common across the three population groups.ConclusionsThe barriers to good-quality healthcare are common for pregnant women, newborns and children; thus, interventions targeted to address them will have uniform beneficial effects. Adopting the identified facilitators would help countries strengthen their health systems and ensure high-quality care for all.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 106

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

      Background Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. Methods A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. Results The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. Conclusion A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        The quality of care. How can it be assessed?

         A Donabedian (2015)
        Before assessment can begin we must decide how quality is to be defined and that depends on whether one assesses only the performance of practitioners or also the contributions of patients and of the health care system; on how broadly health and responsibility for health are defined; on whether the maximally effective or optimally effective care is sought; and on whether individual or social preferences define the optimum. We also need detailed information about the causal linkages among the structural attributes of the settings in which care occurs, the processes of care, and the outcomes of care. Specifying the components or outcomes of care to be sampled, formulating the appropriate criteria and standards, and obtaining the necessary information are the steps that follow. Though we know much about assessing quality, much remains to be known.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980-2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5.

          Maternal mortality remains a major challenge to health systems worldwide. Reliable information about the rates and trends in maternal mortality is essential for resource mobilisation, and for planning and assessment of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG 5), the target for which is a 75% reduction in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 1990 to 2015. We assessed levels and trends in maternal mortality for 181 countries. We constructed a database of 2651 observations of maternal mortality for 181 countries for 1980-2008, from vital registration data, censuses, surveys, and verbal autopsy studies. We used robust analytical methods to generate estimates of maternal deaths and the MMR for each year between 1980 and 2008. We explored the sensitivity of our data to model specification and show the out-of-sample predictive validity of our methods. We estimated that there were 342,900 (uncertainty interval 302,100-394,300) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008, down from 526,300 (446,400-629,600) in 1980. The global MMR decreased from 422 (358-505) in 1980 to 320 (272-388) in 1990, and was 251 (221-289) per 100,000 livebirths in 2008. The yearly rate of decline of the global MMR since 1990 was 1.3% (1.0-1.5). During 1990-2008, rates of yearly decline in the MMR varied between countries, from 8.8% (8.7-14.1) in the Maldives to an increase of 5.5% (5.2-5.6) in Zimbabwe. More than 50% of all maternal deaths were in only six countries in 2008 (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). In the absence of HIV, there would have been 281 500 (243,900-327,900) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008. Substantial, albeit varied, progress has been made towards MDG 5. Although only 23 countries are on track to achieve a 75% decrease in MMR by 2015, countries such as Egypt, China, Ecuador, and Bolivia have been achieving accelerated progress. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford , Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
            [2 ]Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child & Adolescent Health, World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland
            Author notes
            [Correspondence to ] Dr Manisha Nair; manisha.nair@ 123456npeu.ox.ac.uk
            Journal
            BMJ Open
            BMJ Open
            bmjopen
            bmjopen
            BMJ Open
            BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
            2044-6055
            2014
            22 May 2014
            : 4
            : 5
            24852300
            4039842
            bmjopen-2013-004749
            10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004749
            Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

            This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

            Product
            Categories
            Health Services Research
            Research
            1506
            1704
            1724

            Medicine

            public health

            Comments

            Comment on this article