Search

Background: Although several indicators have been proposed to measure women's experience of care in health facilities during the intrapartum period, it is unknown if these indicators perform differently in the context of obstetric emergencies. We examined the relationship between experience of care indicators from the Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC) scale and obstetric complications. Methods: We used data from four cross-sectional surveys conducted in Kenya (rural: N = 873; urban: N = 531), Ghana (N = 531), and India (N = 2018) between August 2016 and October 2017. The pooled sample included 3953 women aged 15–49 years who gave birth within 9 weeks prior to the survey. Experience of care was measured using the PCMC scale. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariable analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the composite and 31 individual PCMC indicators with (1) obstetric complications; (2) severity of complications; and (3) delivery by cesarean section (c-section). Results: 16% (632) of women in the pooled sample reported obstetric complications; and 4% (132) reported having given birth via c-Sect. (10.5% among those with complications). The average standardized PCMC scores (range 0–100) were 63.5 (SD = 14.1) for the full scale, 43.2 (SD = 20.6) for communication and autonomy, 67.8 (SD = 14.1) for supportive care, and 80.1 (SD = 18.2) for dignity and respect sub-scales. Women with complications had higher communication and autonomy scores (45.6 [SD = 20.2]) on average compared to those without complications (42.7 [SD = 20.6]) (p < 0.001), but lower supportive care scores, and about the same scores for dignity and respect and for the overall PCMC. 18 out of 31 experience of care indicators showed statistically significant differences by complications, but the magnitudes of the differences were generally small, and the direction of the associations were inconsistent. In general, women who delivered by c-section reported better experiences. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence based on our analysis to suggest that women with obstetric complications report consistently better or worse experiences of care than women without. Women with complications appear to experience better care on some indicators and worse care on others. More studies are needed to understand the relationship between obstetric complications and women's experience of care and to explore why women who deliver by c-section may report better experience of care. Plain language summary: In several studies and reports, women have described mistreatment by health providers during childbirth in health facilities. Particularly in low- and middle-income countries, such mistreatment has negative effects on women's decisions to seek maternity care in health facilities. It is unclear if women with complications are more or less likely to experience some forms of mistreatment compared to women without complications. In this study, we examined 31 experience of care indicators in three domains: (1) Supportive Care; (2) Respect and Dignity; and (3) Communication and Autonomy from the validated Person-Centered Maternity Care (PCMC) questionnaire. We compare these experience of care indicators between women who report obstetric complications and those who don't report complications, by the reported severity of the complications, and by their mode of delivery. The study included data from three countries: Ghana, Kenya, and India. The results showed that the experience of care among women who reported obstetric complications was not consistently better or worse than that of those who did not have complications. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve the experience of care in health facilities for every birthing woman. Additionally, women who delivered via c-section had consistently better experiences than women who delivered vaginally. More studies are needed to understand the relationship between mode of delivery and women's experience of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Facility-based and context-specific interventions to promote physical activity (PA) among pregnant women from economically underprivileged communities remain sparse and undocumented in South Africa. This study aimed to generate information about pregnant women's views and experiences of PA during pregnancy, which will later be used to inform the development of a PA-based intervention targeting this group. Methods: Qualitative methods were used and framed on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Five focus group discussions were conducted at a Community Health Centre in Cape Town, each comprising a stratified random sample of between 8 and 6 pregnant women living in eight low socioeconomic status communities close to the facility. The participants included primi- and multigravida black and mixed racial ancestry women at different stages of pregnancy. Data were analyzed using a Framework approach. Results: PA was considered important for self and the baby for most participants. However, they reported a number of barriers for translating intentions into action including the lack of supportive environment, fear of hurting oneself and the growing baby, lack of time due to work and family responsibilities, and not knowing which and how much PA is safe to do. Some of the incentives to engage in PA included establishing community-based group exercise clubs, initiating antenatal PA education and PA sessions during antenatal visits. Conclusion: Based on our findings the need for an intervention to promote PA in pregnancy is evident. Such an intervention should, however, aim at addressing barriers reported in this study, particularly those related to the behavioral context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Despite significant advances in the science of quality of care measurement over the last decade, approaches to developing quality of care indicators for global health priorities are not clearly defined. We conducted a scoping review of concepts and methods used to develop quality of healthcare indicators to better inform ongoing efforts towards a more harmonised approach to quality of care indicator development in global health., Methods: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases, grey literature and references for articles on developing quality of care indicators for routine monitoring in all healthcare settings and populations, published in English between 2010 and 2020. We used well-established methods for article screening and selection, data extraction and management. Results were summarised using a descriptive analysis and a narrative synthesis., Results: The 221 selected articles were largely from high-income settings (89%), particularly the USA (46%), Canada (9%), UK (9%) and Europe (17%). Quality of care indicators were developed mainly for healthcare providers (56%), for benchmarking or quality assurance (37%) and quality improvement (29%), in hospitals (32%) and primary care (26%), across many diseases. The terms 'quality indicator' and 'quality measure' were the most frequently encountered terms (50% and 21%, respectively). Systematic approaches for quality of care indicator development emerged within national quality of care systems or through cross-country collaborations in high-income settings. Maternal, neonatal and child health (33%), mental health (26%) and primary care (57%) studies applied most components of systematic approaches, but not consistently or rigorously., Discussion: The current evidence shows variations in concepts and approaches to developing quality of care indicators, with development and application mainly in high-income countries., Conclusion: Additional efforts are needed to propose 'best-practice' conceptual frameworks and methods for developing quality of care indicators to improve their utility in global health measurement., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)