↓ Skip to main content

Effects of the EQUIP quasi-experimental study testing a collaborative quality improvement approach for maternal and newborn health care in Tanzania and Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
Effects of the EQUIP quasi-experimental study testing a collaborative quality improvement approach for maternal and newborn health care in Tanzania and Uganda
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0604-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

P Waiswa, F Manzi, G Mbaruku, A. K. Rowe, M Marx, G Tomson, T Marchant, B. A. Willey, J Schellenberg, S Peterson, C Hanson, The EQUIP study team

Abstract

Quality improvement is a recommended strategy to improve implementation levels for evidence-based essential interventions, but experience of and evidence for its effects in low-resource settings are limited. We hypothesised that a systemic and collaborative quality improvement approach covering district, facility and community levels, supported by report cards generated through continuous household and health facility surveys, could improve the implementation levels and have a measurable population-level impact on coverage and quality of essential services. Collaborative quality improvement teams tested self-identified strategies (change ideas) to support the implementation of essential maternal and newborn interventions recommended by the World Health Organization. In Tanzania and Uganda, we used a plausibility design to compare the changes over time in one intervention district with those in a comparison district in each country. Evaluation included indicators of process, coverage and implementation practice analysed with a difference-of-differences and a time-series approach, using data from independent continuous household and health facility surveys from 2011 to 2014. Primary outcomes for both countries were birth in health facilities, breastfeeding within 1 h after birth, oxytocin administration after birth and knowledge of danger signs for mothers and babies. Interpretation of the results considered contextual factors. The intervention was associated with improvements on one of four primary outcomes. We observed a 26-percentage-point increase (95% CI 25-28%) in the proportion of live births where mothers received uterotonics within 1 min after birth in the intervention compared to the comparison district in Tanzania and an 8-percentage-point increase (95% CI 6-9%) in Uganda. The other primary indicators showed no evidence of improvement. In Tanzania, we saw positive changes for two other outcomes reflecting locally identified improvement topics. The intervention was associated with an increase in preparation of clean birth kits for home deliveries (31 percentage points, 95% CI 2-60%) and an increase in health facility supervision by district staff (14 percentage points, 95% CI 0-28%). The systemic quality improvement approach was associated with improvements of only one of four primary outcomes, as well as two Tanzania-specific secondary outcomes. Reasons for the lack of effects included limited implementation strength as well a relatively short follow-up period in combination with a 1-year recall period for population-based estimates and a limited power of the study to detect changes smaller than 10 percentage points. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR201311000681314.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 15%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 45 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 20%
Social Sciences 17 8%
Psychology 11 5%
Engineering 6 3%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 53 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 14 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,697,317
of 25,088,711 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#316
of 1,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,575
of 320,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#11
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,088,711 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 1,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 320,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 71% of its contemporaries.