ArticleBMJ open2026
Facilitators' experiences of co-designing an intrapartum care intervention in four sub-Saharan African countries: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim is to explore co-design facilitators' perspectives and experiences of using co-design to improve intrapartum care in four sub-Saharan African settings. The inquiry focuses particularly on how they fostered engagement, built trust and mitigated unintended consequences during the co-design process.
designQualitative interview study with reflexive thematic analysis.
settingSixteen public and private not-for-profit hospital-based maternity units in Benin, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda (four per country).
participantsA total population sample of 10 co-design facilitators involved in a hospital-based co-design project implemented in maternity units in Benin, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda were interviewed. Semistructured interviews were conducted between December 2022 and January 2023.
resultsCo-design facilitators viewed co-design as a collaborative process to develop contextually relevant solutions. Our findings elucidate their role in facilitating consensus-building and fostering stakeholder ownership amidst significant power divides. They described approaches co-design facilitators take to maintain ongoing stakeholder engagement and manage misaligned expectations in a trusting and collaborative environment, while being mindful of existing tensions and power imbalances. They also highlighted key challenges faced, including navigating norms, power imbalances and unintended consequences.
conclusionsThis study underscores the importance of power-sharing, fostering ownership and engaging end users equitably and continuously in co-design efforts, while also being aware of how to address its potential unintended consequences. Further research is needed to understand co-design facilitators' impact on co-design and how to address unintended consequences for stakeholders during and after co-design activities in intrapartum interventions in low-resource settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.