↓ Skip to main content

Discordance in self-report and observation data on mistreatment of women by providers during childbirth in Uttar Pradesh, India

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, November 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 (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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
Discordance in self-report and observation data on mistreatment of women by providers during childbirth in Uttar Pradesh, India
Published in
Reproductive Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0409-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnab Dey, Holly Baker Shakya, Dharmendra Chandurkar, Sanjiv Kumar, Arup Kumar Das, John Anthony, Mrunal Shetye, Suneeta Krishnan, Jay G. Silverman, Anita Raj

Abstract

The study aims to assess the discordance between self-reported and observed measures of mistreatment of women during childbirth in public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India, as well as correlates of these measures and their discordance. Cross sectional data were collected through direct observation of deliveries and follow-up interviews with women (n = 875) delivering in 81 public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh. Participants were surveyed on demographics, mistreatment during childbirth, and maternal and newborn complications. Provider characteristics (training, age) were obtained through interviews with providers, and observation data were obtained from checklists completed by trained nurse investigators to document quality of care at delivery. Mistreatment was assessed via self-report and observed measures which included 17 and 6 items respectively. Cohen's kappas assessed concordance between the 6 items common in the self-report and observed measures. Regression models assessed associations between characteristics of women and providers for each outcome. Most participants (77.3%) self-reported mistreatment in at least 1 of the 17-item measure. For the 6 items included in both self-report and observations, 9.1% of women self-reported mistreatment, whereas observers reported 22.4% of women being mistreated. Cohen's kappas indicated mostly fair to moderate concordance. Regression analyses found that multiparous birth (AOR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.06-2.13), post-partum maternal complications (AOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.34-3.06); new-born complications (AOR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1. 96-4.03) and not having an Skilled Birth Attendant (SBA) trained provider (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.05-2.04) were associated with increased risk for mistreatment as measured by self-report. In contrast, only provider characteristics like older provider (AOR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.02-1.05) and provider not trained in SBA (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.02-2.02) were associated with mistreatment as measured through observations. Younger age at marriage (AOR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78-0.95) and provider characteristics (older provider AOR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.09; provider not trained in SBA AOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92-0.99) were associated with discordance (based on mistreatment reported by observer but not by women). Provider mistreatment during childbirth is prevalent in Uttar Pradesh and may be under-reported by women, particularly when they are younger or when providers are older or less trained. The findings warrant programmatic action as well as more research to better understand the context and drivers of both behavior and reporting. CTRI/2015/09/006219. Registered 28 September 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 4%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 66 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 18%
Social Sciences 21 11%
Psychology 7 4%
Unspecified 5 3%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 71 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,221,731
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#497
of 1,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,177
of 325,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#21
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 325,985 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 55% of its contemporaries.