↓ Skip to main content

How women are treated during facility-based childbirth: development and validation of measurement tools in four countries – phase 1 formative research study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, July 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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
333 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
How women are treated during facility-based childbirth: development and validation of measurement tools in four countries – phase 1 formative research study protocol
Published in
Reproductive Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12978-015-0047-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua P. Vogel, Meghan A. Bohren, Özge Tunçalp, Olufemi T. Oladapo, Richard M. Adanu, Mamadou Diouldé Baldé, Thae Maung Maung, Bukola Fawole, Kwame Adu-Bonsaffoh, Phyllis Dako-Gyeke, Ernest Tei Maya, Mohamed Campell Camara, Alfa Boubacar Diallo, Safiatou Diallo, Khin Thet Wai, Theingi Myint, Lanre Olutayo, Musibau Titiloye, Frank Alu, Hadiza Idris, Metin A. Gülmezoglu, On behalf of the WHO Research Group on the Treatment of Women During Childbirth

Abstract

Every woman has the right to dignified, respectful care during childbirth. Recent evidence has demonstrated that globally many women experience mistreatment during labour and childbirth in health facilities, which can pose a significant barrier to women attending facilities for delivery and can contribute to poor birth experiences and adverse outcomes for women and newborns. However there is no clear consensus on how mistreatment of women during childbirth in facilities is defined and measured. We propose using a two-phased, mixed-methods study design in four countries to address these research gaps. This protocol describes the Phase 1 qualitative research activities. We will employ qualitative research methodologies among women, healthcare providers and administrators in the facility catchment areas of two health facilities in each country: Ghana, Guinea, Myanmar and Nigeria. In-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) will be conducted among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) to explore their perceptions and experiences of facility-based childbirth care, focused on how they were treated by healthcare workers and perceived factors affecting how they were treated. IDIs will also be conducted with healthcare providers of different cadres (e.g.: nurses, midwives, medical officers, specialist obstetricians) and facility administrators working in the selected facilities to explore healthcare providers' perceptions and experiences of facility-based childbirth care and how staff are treated, colleagues and supervisors. Audio recordings will be transcribed and translated to English. Textual data will be analysed using a thematic framework approach and will consist of two levels of analysis: (1) conduct of local analysis workshops with the research assistants in each country; and (2) line-by-line coding to develop a thematic framework and coding scheme. This study serves several roles. It will provide an in-depth understanding of how women are treated during childbirth in four countries and perceived factors associated with this mistreatment. It will also provide data on where and how an intervention could be developed to reduce mistreatment and promote respectful care. The findings from this study will contribute to the development of tools to measure the prevalence of mistreatment of women during facility-based childbirth.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 331 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 19%
Researcher 49 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Student > Postgraduate 18 5%
Other 68 20%
Unknown 73 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 74 22%
Social Sciences 47 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 34 10%
Unknown 86 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,543,306
of 24,171,551 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#130
of 1,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,119
of 268,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,171,551 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 268,229 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.