↓ Skip to main content

A combined community- and facility-based approach to improve pregnancy outcomes in low-resource settings: a Global Network cluster randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 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
A combined community- and facility-based approach to improve pregnancy outcomes in low-resource settings: a Global Network cluster randomized trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-215
Pubmed ID
Authors

Omrana Pasha, Elizabeth M McClure, Linda L Wright, Sarah Saleem, Shivaprasad S Goudar, Elwyn Chomba, Archana Patel, Fabian Esamai, Ana Garces, Fernando Althabe, Bhala Kodkany, Hillary Mabeya, Albert Manasyan, Waldemar A Carlo, Richard J Derman, Patricia L Hibberd, Edward K Liechty, Nancy Krebs, K Michael Hambidge, Pierre Buekens, Janet Moore, Alan H Jobe, Marion Koso-Thomas, Dennis D Wallace, Suzanne Stalls, Robert L Goldenberg

Abstract

Fetal and neonatal mortality rates in low-income countries are at least 10-fold greater than in high-income countries. These differences have been related to poor access to and poor quality of obstetric and neonatal care. This trial tested the hypothesis that teams of health care providers, administrators and local residents can address the problem of limited access to quality obstetric and neonatal care and lead to a reduction in perinatal mortality in intervention compared to control locations. In seven geographic areas in five low-income and one middle-income country, most with high perinatal mortality rates and substantial numbers of home deliveries, we performed a cluster randomized non-masked trial of a package of interventions that included community mobilization focusing on birth planning and hospital transport, community birth attendant training in problem recognition, and facility staff training in the management of obstetric and neonatal emergencies. The primary outcome was perinatal mortality at ≥28 weeks gestation or birth weight ≥1000 g. Despite extensive effort in all sites in each of the three intervention areas, no differences emerged in the primary or any secondary outcome between the intervention and control clusters. In both groups, the mean perinatal mortality was 40.1/1,000 births (P = 0.9996). Neither were there differences between the two groups in outcomes in the last six months of the project, in the year following intervention cessation, nor in the clusters that best implemented the intervention. This cluster randomized comprehensive, large-scale, multi-sector intervention did not result in detectable impact on the proposed outcomes. While this does not negate the importance of these interventions, we expect that achieving improvement in pregnancy outcomes in these settings will require substantially more obstetric and neonatal care infrastructure than was available at the sites during this trial, and without them provider training and community mobilization will not be sufficient. Our results highlight the critical importance of evaluating outcomes in randomized trials, as interventions that should be effective may not be. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01073488.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 236 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 24%
Researcher 39 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Other 18 7%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 41 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 14%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 52 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,521,836
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,069
of 3,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,964
of 207,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#28
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 207,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.