↓ Skip to main content

Emergency obstetric and neonatal care availability, use, and quality: a cross-sectional study in the city of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2011

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emergency obstetric and neonatal care availability, use, and quality: a cross-sectional study in the city of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2011
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1224-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abel Mukengeshayi Ntambue, Françoise Kaj Malonga, Karen D. Cowgill, Michèle Dramaix-Wilmet, Philippe Donnen

Abstract

While emergency obstetric and neonatal care (EmONC) is a proxy indicator for monitoring maternal and perinatal mortalities, in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), data on this care is rarely available. In the city of Lubumbashi, the second largest in DRC with an estimated population of 1.5 million, the availability, use and quality of EmONC are not known. This study aimed to assess these elements in Lubumbashi. This cross-sectional survey was conducted in April and May 2011. Fifty-three of the 180 health facilities that provide maternity care in Lubumbashi were included in this study. Only health facilities with at least six deliveries per month over the course of 2010 were included. The availability, use and quality of EmONC at each level of the health care system were assessed according to the WHO standards. The availability of EmONC in Lubumbashi falls short of WHO standards. In this study, we found one facility providing Comprehensive EmONC (CEmONC) for a catchment area of 918,819 inhabitants. Apart from the tertiary hospital (Sendwe), no other facility provided all the basic emergency obstetric and neonatal care (BEmONC) signal functions. However, all had carried out at least one of the nine signal functions during the 3 months preceding our survey: 73.6% of 53 facilities had administered parenteral antibiotics, 79.2% had systematically offered oxytocics, 39.6% had administered magnesium sulfate, 73.6% had manually evacuated placentas, 81.1% had removed retained placenta products, 54.7% had revived newborns, 35.8% had performed caesarean sections, and 47.2% had performed blood transfusions. Function 6, vaginal delivery assisted by ventouse or forceps, was performed in only two (3.8%) facilities. If this signal function was not taken into account in our assessment of EmONC availability, there would be five facilities providing CEmONC for 918,819 inhabitants, rather than one. In 2010, all the women in the surveyed facilities with obstetric complications delivered in facilities that had carried out at least one signal function in the 3 months before our survey; 7.0% of these women delivered in the facility which provided CEmONC. Mortality due to direct obstetric causes was 3.9% in the health facility that provided CEmONC. The intrapartum mortality was also high in this facility (5.1%). None of the maternity ward managers in any of the facilities surveyed had received training on the EmONC package. Essential supplies and equipment for performing certain EmONC functions were not available in all the surveyed facilities. Audits of maternal and neonatal deaths and near-misses should be established and used as a basis for monitoring the quality of care in Lubumbashi. To reduce maternal and perinatal mortality, it is essential that staff skills regarding EmONC be strengthened, the availability of supplies and equipment be increased, and that care processes be standardized in all health facilities in Lubumbashi.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 18%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 75 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 19%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 1%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 78 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,431,277
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#3,013
of 4,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,899
of 417,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#57
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.