↓ Skip to main content

The MONARCH intervention to enhance the quality of antenatal and postnatal primary health services in rural South Africa: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
The MONARCH intervention to enhance the quality of antenatal and postnatal primary health services in rural South Africa: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3404-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terusha Chetty, H. Manisha N. Yapa, Carina Herbst, Pascal Geldsetzer, Kevindra K. Naidu, Jan-Walter De Neve, Kobus Herbst, Philippa Matthews, Deenan Pillay, Sally Wyke, Till Bärnighausen, for the MONARCH study team

Abstract

Gaps in maternal and child health services can slow progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The Management and Optimization of Nutrition, Antenatal, Reproductive, Child Health & HIV Care (MONARCH) study will evaluate a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) intervention targeted at improving antenatal and postnatal health service outcomes in rural South Africa where HIV prevalence among pregnant women is extremely high. Specifically, it will establish the effectiveness of CQI on viral load (VL) testing in pregnant women who are HIV-positive and repeat HIV testing in pregnant women who are HIV-negative. This is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 7 nurse-led primary healthcare clinics to establish the effect of CQI on selected routine antenatal and postnatal services. Each clinic was a cluster, with the exception of the two smallest clinics, which jointly formed one cluster. The intervention was applied at the cluster level, where staff received training on CQI methodology and additional mentoring as required. In the control exposure state, the clusters received the South African Department of Health standard of care. After a baseline data collection period of 2 months, the first cluster crossed over from control to intervention exposure state; subsequently, one additional cluster crossed over every 2 months. The six clusters were divided into 3 groups by patient volume (low, medium and high). We randomised the six clusters to the sequences of crossing over, such that both the first three and the last three sequences included one cluster with low, one with medium, and one with high patient volume. The primary outcome measures were (i) viral load testing among pregnant women who were HIV-positive, and (ii) repeat HIV testing among pregnant women who were HIV-negative. Consenting women ≥18 years attending antenatal and postnatal care during the data collection period completed outcome measures at delivery, and postpartum at three to 6 days, and 6 weeks. Data collection started on 15 July 2015. The total study duration, including pre- and post-exposure phases, was 19 months. Data will be analyzed by intention-to-treat based on first booked clinic of study participants. The results of the MONARCH trial will establish the effectiveness of CQI in improving antenatal and postnatal clinic processes in primary care in sub-Saharan Africa. More generally, the results will contribute to our knowledge on quality improvement interventions in resource-poor settings. This trial was registered on 10 December 2015: www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02626351 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 213 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Researcher 12 6%
Lecturer 11 5%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 76 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 16%
Social Sciences 21 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 78 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#19,013,042
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,778
of 8,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,262
of 334,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#185
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 334,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.