↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to access and utilization of emergency obstetric care at health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
307 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
Barriers to access and utilization of emergency obstetric care at health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0720-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayele Geleto, Catherine Chojenta, Abdulbasit Mussa, Deborah Loxton

Abstract

Nearly 15% of all pregnancies end in fatal perinatal obstetric complications including bleeding, infections, hypertension, obstructed labor, and complications of abortion. Between 1990 and 2015, an estimated 10.7 million women died due to obstetric complications. Almost all of these deaths (99%) happened in developing countries, and 66% of maternal deaths were attributed to sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of cases of maternal mortalities can be prevented through provision of evidence-based potentially life-saving signal functions of emergency obstetric care. However, different factors can hinder women's ability to access and use emergency obstetric services in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, the aim of this review is to synthesize current evidence on barriers to accessing and utilizing emergency obstetric care in sub-Saharan African. Decision-makers and policy formulators will use evidence generated from this review in improving maternal healthcare particularly the emergency obstetric care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Maternity and Infant Care will be searched for studies using predefined search terms. Articles published in English language between 2010 and 2017 with quantitative and qualitative design will be included. The identified papers will be assessed for meeting eligibility criteria. First, the articles will be screened by examining their titles and abstracts. Then, two reviewers will review the full text of the selected articles independently. Two reviewers using a standard data extraction format will undertake data extraction from the retained studies. The quality of the included papers will be assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool. Results from the eligible studies will be qualitatively synthesized using the narrative synthesis approach and reported using the three delays model. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be employed to present the findings. This systematic review will present a detailed synthesis of the evidence for barriers to access and utilization of emergency obstetric care in sub-Saharan Africa over the last 7 years. This systematic review is expected to provide clear information that can help in designing maternal health policy and interventions particularly in emergency obstetric care in sub-Saharan Africa where maternal mortality remains high. PROSPERO CRD42017074102 .

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 307 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 21%
Researcher 26 8%
Student > Bachelor 22 7%
Lecturer 17 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Other 53 17%
Unknown 109 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 20%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Unspecified 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 117 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,815,818
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#993
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,212
of 296,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#27
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 296,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.