Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33328199›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2020

Community interventions with women's groups to improve women's and children's health in India: a mixed-methods systematic review of effects, enablers and barriers.

Sapna Desai, Madhavi Misra, Aikantika Das, Roopal Jyoti Singh, Mrignyani Sehgal, Lu Gram, Neha Kumar, Audrey Prost

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sapna DesaiPopulation Council India, New Delhi, Delhi, India sdesai@popcouncil.org.ORCID 0000-0003-2596-9726
Madhavi MisraPopulation Council India, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Aikantika DasPopulation Council India, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Roopal Jyoti SinghPopulation Council India, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Mrignyani SehgalInternational Food Policy Research Institute, New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5534-3543
Lu GramInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3905-0465
Neha KumarInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-3277
Audrey ProstUniversity College London Institute of Child Health, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6121-8132

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIndia is home to over 6 million women's groups, including self-help groups. There has been no evidence synthesis on whether and how such groups improve women's and children's health.

methodsWe did a mixed-methods systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies on women's groups in India to examine effects on women and children's health and to identify enablers and barriers to achieving outcomes. We searched 10 databases and included studies published in English from 2000 to 2019 measuring health knowledge, behaviours or outcomes. Our study population included adult women and children under 5 years. We appraised studies using standard risk of bias assessments. We compared intervention effects by level of community participation, scope of capability strengthening (individual, group or community), type of women's group and social and behaviour change techniques employed. We synthesised quantitative and qualitative studies to identify barriers and enablers related to context, intervention design and implementation, and outcome characteristics.

findingsWe screened 21 380 studies and included 99: 19 randomised controlled trial reports, 25 quasi-experimental study reports and 55 non-experimental studies (27 quantitative and 28 qualitative). Experimental studies provided moderate-quality evidence that health interventions with women's groups can improve perinatal practices, neonatal survival, immunisation rates and women's and children's dietary diversity, and help control vector-borne diseases. Evidence of positive effects was strongest for community mobilisation interventions that built communities' capabilities and went beyond sharing information. Key enablers were inclusion of vulnerable community members, outcomes that could be reasonably expected to change through community interventions and intensity proportionate to ambition. Barriers included limited time or focus on health, outcomes not relevant to group members and health system constraints.

conclusionInterventions with women's groups can improve women's and children's health in India. The most effective interventions go beyond using groups to disseminate health information and seek to build communities' capabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019130633.

Indexed as

Child HealthWomen's HealthAdultChildChild, PreschoolCommunity ParticipationFemaleHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornPregnancyQualitative Researchprevention strategiespublic healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33328199
PMCPMC7745316

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.