↓ Skip to main content

Formative research and development of innovative tools for “Better Outcomes in Labour Difficulty” (BOLD): study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, May 2015
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Formative research and development of innovative tools for “Better Outcomes in Labour Difficulty” (BOLD): study protocol
Published in
Reproductive Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12978-015-0028-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meghan A Bohren, Olufemi T Oladapo, Özge Tunçalp, Melanie Wendland, Joshua P Vogel, Mari Tikkanen, Bukola Fawole, Kidza Mugerwa, João Paulo Souza, Rajiv Bahl, A. Metin Gülmezoglu, WHO BOLD Research Group

Abstract

Most complications during labour and childbirth could be averted with timely interventions by skilled healthcare providers. Yet, the quality and outcomes of childbirth care remains suboptimal in many health facilities in low-resource settings. To accelerate the reduction of childbirth-related maternal, fetal and newborn mortality and morbidity, the World Health Organization has initiated the "Better Outcomes in Labour Difficulty" (BOLD) project to address weaknesses in labour care processes and better connect health systems and communities. The project seeks to develop a "Simplified, Effective, Labour Monitoring-to-Action" tool (SELMA) to assist healthcare providers to monitor labour and take decisive actions more efficiently; and by developing an innovative set of service prototypes and/or tools termed "Passport to Safer Birth", designed with communities and healthcare providers, to promote access to quality care for women during childbirth. This protocol describes the formative research activities to support the development of these tools. We will employ qualitative research and service design methodologies in eight health facilities and their catchment communities in Nigeria and Uganda. In the health facilities, focus group discussions (FGD) and in-depth interviews (IDI) will be conducted among different cadres of healthcare providers and facility administrators. In the communities, FGDs and IDIs will be conducted among women who have delivered in a health facility. We will use service design methods to explore women's journey to access and receive childbirth care in order to innovate and design services around the needs and expectations of women, within the context of the health system. This formative research will serve several roles. First, it will provide an in-depth understanding of healthcare providers and health system issues to be accounted for in the final design and implementation of SELMA. Second, it will help to identify key moments ("touch points") where women's experiences of childbirth care are shaped, and where the overall experience of quality care could be improved. The synthesis of findings from the qualitative and service design activities will help identify potential areas for behaviour change related to the provision and experience of childbirth care, and serve as the basis for the development of Passport to Safer Birth. Please see related articles 'http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/s12978-015-0027-6 ' and 'http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/s12978-015-0029-4 '.

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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 147 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 29%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 7 5%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 21 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 25%
Social Sciences 25 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Design 4 3%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 28 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,200,536
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#477
of 1,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,622
of 273,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#16
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 273,067 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 62% of its contemporaries.