Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34713395›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2022

Stated Preference Research in Reproductive and Maternal Healthcare Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review.

Daniel Erku, Paul Scuffham, Katrina Gething, Richard Norman, Alemayehu B Mekonnen, Gebremedhin B Gebretekle, Yibeltal Assefa, Gizachew A Tessema

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Daniel ErkuCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Building G05 2.44A, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia. d.erku@griffith.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8878-0317
Paul ScuffhamCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Building G05 2.44A, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5931-642X
Katrina GethingCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Building G05 2.44A, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Richard NormanCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3112-3893
Alemayehu B MekonnenCentre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6826-4817
Gebremedhin B GebretekleInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2485-505X
Yibeltal AssefaSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2393-1492
Gizachew A TessemaCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4784-8151

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveUnderstanding the preferred choice of healthcare service attributes for women is important, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where resources are constrained and improving reproductive and maternal healthcare services is of high importance. The aim of this systematic review was to identify attributes of reproductive and maternal healthcare services in sub-Saharan Africa, and summarise the factors shaping women's preference to access these services.

methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched from the inception of each database until March 2021 for published studies reporting stated preferences for maternal and reproductive healthcare services in sub-Saharan Africa. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and the quality of reporting of included studies was assessed using PREFS and ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) checklists. The Donabedian's model for quality of healthcare was used to categorise attributes into "structure", "process" and "outcome".

resultsA total of 13 studies (12 discrete choice experiments and one best-worst scaling study) were included. Attributes related to the structure of healthcare services (e.g. availability of technical equipment, medications or diagnostic facilities, having good system conditions) are often included within the studies, and are considered the most important by women. Of the three dimensions of quality of healthcare, the outcome dimension was the least frequently studied across studies. All except one study explored women's preferences and the participants were pregnant women, women aged 18-49 years who had recently given birth and women living with human immunodeficiency virus. The included studies came from five sub-Saharan Africa countries of which Ethiopia and South Africa each contributed three studies. All of the included studies reported on the purpose, findings and significance of the study. However, none of the studies reported on the differences between responders vs non-responders. Nine of the 13 studies employed the ISPOR checklist and reported each item including the research question and the methods for identifying and selecting attributes, and provided the findings in sufficient detail and clarity.

conclusionsAligning maternal healthcare service provision with women's preferences may foster client-oriented services and thereby improve service uptake and better patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesAfrica South of the SaharaFemaleHumansPregnancyDiscrete choice experimentMaternal healthcare servicesStated preferenceSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.