↓ Skip to main content

Methods used in prevalence studies of disrespect and abuse during facility based childbirth: lessons learned

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, October 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 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
Methods used in prevalence studies of disrespect and abuse during facility based childbirth: lessons learned
Published in
Reproductive Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0389-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Sando, Timothy Abuya, Anteneh Asefa, Kathleen P. Banks, Lynn P. Freedman, Stephanie Kujawski, Amanda Markovitz, Charity Ndwiga, Kate Ramsey, Hannah Ratcliffe, Emmanuel O. Ugwu, Charlotte E. Warren, R. Rima Jolivet

Abstract

Several recent studies have attempted to measure the prevalence of disrespect and abuse (D&A) of women during childbirth in health facilities. Variations in reported prevalence may be associated with differences in study instruments and data collection methods. This systematic review and comparative analysis of methods aims to aggregate and present lessons learned from published studies that quantified the prevalence of Disrespect and Abuse (D&A) during childbirth. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Five papers met criteria and were included for analysis. We developed an analytical framework depicting the basic elements of epidemiological methodology in prevalence studies and a table of common types of systematic error associated with each of them. We performed a head-to-head comparison of study methods for all five papers. Using these tools, an independent reviewer provided an analysis of the potential for systematic error in the reported prevalence estimates. Sampling techniques, eligibility criteria, categories of D&A selected for study, operational definitions of D&A, summary measures of D&A, and the mode, timing, and setting of data collection all varied in the five studies included in the review. These variations present opportunities for the introduction of biases - in particular selection, courtesy, and recall bias - and challenge the ability to draw comparisons across the studies' results. Our review underscores the need for caution in interpreting or comparing previously reported prevalence estimates of D&A during facility-based childbirth. The lack of standardized definitions, instruments, and study methods used to date in studies designed to quantify D&A in childbirth facilities introduced the potential for systematic error in reported prevalence estimates, and affected their generalizability and comparability. Chief among the lessons to emerge from comparing methods for measuring the prevalence of D&A is recognition of the tension between seeking prevalence measures that are reliable and generalizable, and attempting to avoid loss of validity in the context where the issue is being studied.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 242 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 18%
Student > Master 37 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 68 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 58 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 19%
Social Sciences 27 11%
Engineering 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 76 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,344,613
of 21,217,760 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#120
of 1,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,351
of 298,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,217,760 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 1,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 298,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them