↓ Skip to main content

Developing a framework to review near-miss maternal morbidity in India: a structured review and key stakeholder analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Developing a framework to review near-miss maternal morbidity in India: a structured review and key stakeholder analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0553-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanghita Bhattacharyya, Aradhana Srivastava, Marian Knight

Abstract

BackgroundIn India there is a thrust towards promoting institutional delivery, resulting in problems of overcrowding and compromise to quality of care. Review of near-miss obstetric events has been suggested to be useful to investigate health system functioning, complementing maternal death reviews. The aim of this project was to identify the key elements required for a near-miss review programme for India.MethodsA structured review was conducted to identify methods used in assessing near-miss cases. The findings of the structured review were used to develop a suggested framework for conducting near-miss reviews in India. A pool of experts in near-miss review methods in low and middle income countries (LMICs) was identified for vetting the framework developed. Opinions were sought about the feasibility of implementing near-miss reviews in India, the processes to be followed, factors that made implementation successful and the associated challenges. A draft of the framework was revised based on the experts¿ opinions.ResultsFive broad methods of near-miss case review/audit were identified: Facility-based near-miss case review, confidential enquiries, criterion-based clinical audit, structured case review (South African Model) and home-based interviews. The opinion of the 11 stakeholders highlighted that the methods that a facility adopts should depend on the type and number of cases the facility handles, availability and maintenance of a good documentation system, and local leadership and commitment of staff. A proposed framework for conducting near-miss reviews was developed that included a combination of criterion-based clinical audit and near-miss review methods.ConclusionThe approach allowed for development of a framework for researchers and planners seeking to improve quality of maternal care not only at the facility level but also beyond, encompassing community health workers and referral. Further work is needed to evaluate the implementation of this framework to determine its efficacy in improving the quality of care and hence maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 105 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 33 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 32%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 35 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,681,910
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,139
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,754
of 258,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#19
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 258,739 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.