↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the implementation of maternity waiting homes in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative thematic synthesis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet


26 Dimensions

Readers on

271 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.
Understanding the implementation of maternity waiting homes in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative thematic synthesis
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-017-1444-z
Pubmed ID

Loveday Penn-Kekana, Shreya Pereira, Julia Hussein, Hannah Bontogon, Matthew Chersich, Stephen Munjanja, Anayda Portela


Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) are accommodations located near a health facility where women can stay towards the end of pregnancy and/or after birth to enable timely access to essential childbirth care or care for complications. Although MWHs have been implemented for over four decades, different operational models exist. This secondary thematic +analysis explores factors related to their implementation. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using 29 studies across 17 countries. The papers were identified through an existing Cochrane review and a mapping of the maternal health literature. The Supporting the Use of Research Evidence framework (SURE) guided the thematic analysis to explore the perceptions of various stakeholders and barriers and facilitators for implementation. The influence of contextual factors, the design of the MWHs, and the conditions under which they operated were examined. Key problems of MWH implementation included challenges in MWH maintenance and utilization by pregnant women. Poor utilization was due to lack of knowledge and acceptance of the MWH among women and communities, long distances to reach the MWH, and culturally inappropriate care. Poor MWH structures were identified by almost all studies as a major barrier, and included poor toilets and kitchens, and a lack of space for family and companions. Facilitators included reduced or removal of costs associated with using a MWH, community involvement in the design and upkeep of the MWHs, activities to raise awareness and acceptance among family and community members, and integrating culturally-appropriate practices into the provision of maternal and newborn care at the MWHs and the health facilities to which they are linked. MWHs should not be designed as an isolated intervention but using a health systems perspective, taking account of women and community perspectives, the quality of the MWH structure and the care provided at the health facility. Careful tailoring of the MWH to women's accommodation, social and dietary needs; low direct and indirect costs; and a functioning health system are key considerations when implementing MWH. Improved and harmonized documentation of implementation experiences would provide a better understanding of the factors that impact on successful implementation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 271 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 97 36%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 62 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 23%
Social Sciences 34 13%
Psychology 6 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 74 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,889,468 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
of 2,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,889,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 265,332 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.