↓ Skip to main content

Using the unmet obstetric needs indicator to map inequities in life-saving obstetric interventions at the local health care system in Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, December 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Using the unmet obstetric needs indicator to map inequities in life-saving obstetric interventions at the local health care system in Kenya
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12939-014-0112-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Echoka, Dominique Dubourg, Anselimo Makokha, Yeri Kombe, Øystein Evjen Olsen, Moses Mwangi, Bjorg Evjen-Olsen, Jens Byskov

Abstract

BackgroundDeveloping countries with high maternal mortality need to invest in indicators that not only provide information about how many women are dying, but also where, and what can be done to prevent these deaths. The unmet Obstetric Needs (UONs) concept provides this information. This concept was applied at district level in Kenya to assess how many women had UONs and where the women with unmet needs were located.MethodsA facility based retrospective study was conducted in 2010 in Malindi District, Kenya. Data on pregnant women who underwent a major obstetric intervention (MOI) or died in facilities that provide comprehensive Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC) services in 2008 and 2009 were collected. The difference between the number of women who experienced life threatening obstetric complications and those who received care was quantified. The main outcome measures in the study were the magnitude of UONs and their geographical distribution.Results566 women in 2008 and 724 in 2009 underwent MOI. Of these, 185 (32.7%) in 2008 and 204 (28.1%) in 2009 were for Absolute Maternal Indications (AMI). The most common MOI was caesarean section (90%), commonly indicated by Cephalopelvic Disproportion (CPD)¿narrow pelvis (27.6% in 2008; 26.1% in 2009). Based on a reference rate of 1.4%, the overall MOI for AMI rate was 1.25% in 2008 and 1.3% in 2009. In absolute terms, 22 (11%) women in 2008 and 12 (6%) in 2009, who required a life saving intervention failed to get it. Deficits in terms of unmet needs were identified in rural areas only while urban areas had rates higher than the reference rate (0.8% vs. 2.2% in 2008; 0.8% vs. 2.1% in 2009).ConclusionsThe findings, if used as a proxy to maternal mortality, suggest that rural women face higher risks of dying during pregnancy and childbirth. This indicates the need to improve priority setting towards ensuring equity in access to life saving interventions for pregnant women in underserved areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 23%
Researcher 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,257,549
of 25,416,581 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#361
of 2,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,000
of 363,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,416,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 363,285 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.