↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of different demand side interventions to increase maternal health service utilization and practice of birth spacing in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 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
Evaluating the comparative effectiveness of different demand side interventions to increase maternal health service utilization and practice of birth spacing in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo: an innovative, mixed methods approach
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1396-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mari Dumbaugh, Wyvine Bapolisi, Jennie van de Weerd, Michel Zabiti, Paula Mommers, Ghislain Bisimwa Balaluka, Sonja Merten

Abstract

In this protocol we describe a mixed methods study in the province of South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo evaluating the effectiveness of different demand side strategies to increase maternal health service utilization and the practice of birth spacing. Conditional service subsidization, conditional cash transfers and non-monetary incentives aim to encourage women to use maternal health services and practice birth spacing in two different health districts. Our methodology will comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches against each other and no intervention. This study comprises four main research activities: 1) Formative qualitative research to determine feasibility of planned activities and inform development of the quantitative survey; 2) A community-based, longitudinal survey; 3) A retrospective review of health facility records; 4) Qualitative exploration of intervention acceptability and emergent themes through in-depth interviews with program participants, non-participants, their partners and health providers. Female community health workers are engaged as core members of the research team, working in tandem with female survey teams to identify women in the community who meet eligibility criteria. Female community health workers also act as key informants and community entry points during methods design and qualitative exploration. Main study outcomes are completion of antenatal care, institutional delivery, practice of birth spacing, family planning uptake and intervention acceptability in the communities. Qualitative methods also explore decision making around maternal health service use, fertility preference and perceptions of family planning. The innovative mixed methods design allows quantitative data to inform the relationships and phenomena to be explored in qualitative collection. In turn, qualitative findings will be triangulated with quantitative findings. Inspired by the principles of grounded theory, qualitative analysis will begin while data collection is ongoing. This "conversation" between quantitative and qualitative data will result in a more holistic, context-specific exploration and understanding of research topics, including the mechanisms through which the interventions are or are not effective. In addition, engagement of female community health workers as core members of the research team roots research methods in the realities of the community and provides teams with key informants who are simultaneously implicated in the health system, community and target population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 191 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 20%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 52 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 15%
Social Sciences 24 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 58 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,209,399
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,404
of 4,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,675
of 313,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#61
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,228 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 313,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.