↓ Skip to main content

The quality of free antenatal and delivery services in Northern Sierra Leone

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 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
The quality of free antenatal and delivery services in Northern Sierra Leone
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0218-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manso M. Koroma, Samuel S. Kamara, Evelyn A. Bangura, Mohamed A. Kamara, Virgil Lokossou, Namoudou Keita

Abstract

The number of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa continues to be overwhelmingly high. In West Africa, Sierra Leone leads the list, with the highest maternal mortality ratio. In 2010, financial barriers were removed as an incentive for more women to use available antenatal, delivery and postnatal services. Few published studies have examined the quality of free antenatal services and access to emergency obstetric care in Sierra Leone. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2014 in all 97 peripheral health facilities and three hospitals in Bombali District, Northern Region. One hundred antenatal care providers were interviewed, 276 observations were made and 486 pregnant women were interviewed. We assessed the adequacy of antenatal and delivery services provided using national standards. The distance was calculated between each facility providing delivery services and the nearest comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEOC) facility, and the proportion of facilities in a chiefdom within 15 km of each CEOC facility was also calculated. A thematic map was developed to show inequities. The quality of services was poor. Based on national standards, only 27% of women were examined, 2% were screened on their first antenatal visit and 47% received interventions as recommended. Although 94% of facilities provided delivery services, a minority had delivery rooms (40%), delivery kits (42%) or portable water (46%). Skilled attendants supervised 35% of deliveries, and in only 35% of these were processes adequately documented. None of the five basic emergency obstetric care facilities were fully compliant with national standards, and the central and northernmost parts of the district had the least access to comprehensive emergency obstetric care. The health sector needs to monitor the quality of antenatal interventions in addition to measuring coverage. The quality of delivery services is compromised by poor infrastructure, inadequate skilled staff, stock-outs of consumables, non-functional basic emergency obstetric care facilities, and geographic inequities in access to CEOC facilities. These findings suggest that the health sector needs to urgently investigate continuing inequities adversely influencing the uptake of these services, and explore more sustainable funding mechanisms. Without this, the country is unlikely to achieve its goal of reducing maternal deaths.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 26%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 53 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 19%
Social Sciences 17 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 59 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,945,861
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1,061
of 1,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,058
of 312,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#24
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 312,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.