↓ Skip to main content

Implementing the WHO integrated tool to assess quality of care for mothers, newborns and children: results and lessons learnt from five districts in Malawi

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 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
Implementing the WHO integrated tool to assess quality of care for mothers, newborns and children: results and lessons learnt from five districts in Malawi
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1461-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Smith, Atnafu Getachew Asfaw, Kyaw Myint Aung, Lastone Chikoti, Florence Mgawadere, Luigi d’Aquino, Nynke van den Broek

Abstract

In 2014 the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a new tool to be used to assess the quality of care for mothers, newborns and children provided at healthcare facility level. This paper reports on the feasibility of using the tool, its limitations and strengths. Across 5 districts in Malawi, 35 healthcare facilities were assessed. The WHO tool includes checklists, interviews and observation of case management by which care is assessed against agreed standards using a Likert scale (1 lowest: not meeting standard, 5 highest: compliant with standard). Descriptive statistics were used to provide summary scores for each standard. A 'dashboard' system was developed to display the results. For maternal care three areas met standards; 1) supportive care for admitted patients (71% of healthcare facilities scored 4 or 5); 2) prevention and management of infections during pregnancy (71% scored 4 or 5); and 3) management of unsatisfactory progress of labour (84% scored 4 or 5). Availability of essential equipment and supplies was noted to be a critical barrier to achieving satisfactory standards of paediatric care (mean score; standard deviation: 2.9; SD 0.95) and child care (2.7; SD 1.1). Infection control is inadequate across all districts for maternal, newborn and paediatric care. Quality of care varies across districts with a mean (SD) score for all standards combined of 3 (SD 0.19) for the worst performing district and 4 (SD 0.27) for the best. The best performing district has an average score of 4 (SD 0.27). Hospitals had good scores for overall infrastructure, essential drugs, organisation of care and management of preterm labour. However, health centres were better at case management of HIV/AIDS patients and follow-up of sick children. There is a need to develop an expanded framework of standards which is inclusive of all areas of care. In addition, it is important to ensure structure, process and outcomes of health care are reflected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 41 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 20%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 48 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#6,374,507
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,606
of 4,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,147
of 322,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#37
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 322,814 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 64% of its contemporaries.