Publishes on Global Maternal and Child Health, Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions, Maternal and fetal healthcare. 286 papers and 74.2k citations.
Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
BACKGROUND: Data for the causes of maternal deaths are needed to inform policies to improve maternal health. We developed and analysed global, regional, and subregional estimates of the causes of maternal death during 2003-09, with a novel method, updating the previous WHO systematic review. METHODS: We searched specialised and general bibliographic databases for articles published between between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2012, for research data, with no language restrictions, and the WHO mortality database for vital registration data. On the basis of prespecified inclusion criteria, we analysed causes of maternal death from datasets. We aggregated country level estimates to report estimates of causes of death by Millennium Development Goal regions and worldwide, for main and subcauses of death categories with a Bayesian hierarchical model. FINDINGS: We identified 23 eligible studies (published 2003-12). We included 417 datasets from 115 countries comprising 60 799 deaths in the analysis. About 73% (1 771 000 of 2 443 000) of all maternal deaths between 2003 and 2009 were due to direct obstetric causes and deaths due to indirect causes accounted for 27·5% (672 000, 95% UI 19·7-37·5) of all deaths. Haemorrhage accounted for 27·1% (661 000, 19·9-36·2), hypertensive disorders 14·0% (343 000, 11·1-17·4), and sepsis 10·7% (261 000, 5·9-18·6) of maternal deaths. The rest of deaths were due to abortion (7·9% [193 000], 4·7-13·2), embolism (3·2% [78 000], 1·8-5·5), and all other direct causes of death (9·6% [235 000], 6·5-14·3). Regional estimates varied substantially. INTERPRETATION: Between 2003 and 2009, haemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, and sepsis were responsible for more than half of maternal deaths worldwide. More than a quarter of deaths were attributable to indirect causes. These analyses should inform the prioritisation of health policies, programmes, and funding to reduce maternal deaths at regional and global levels. Further efforts are needed to improve the availability and quality of data related to maternal mortality.
BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition of neglectful, abusive, and disrespectful treatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, there is no consensus at a global level on how these occurrences are defined and measured. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence on the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities to inform the development of an evidence-based typology of the phenomenon. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases and grey literature using a predetermined search strategy to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on the mistreatment of women during childbirth across all geographical and income-level settings. We used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesize the qualitative evidence and assessed the confidence in the qualitative review findings using the CERQual approach. In total, 65 studies were included from 34 countries. Qualitative findings were organized under seven domains: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) verbal abuse, (4) stigma and discrimination, (5) failure to meet professional standards of care, (6) poor rapport between women and providers, and (7) health system conditions and constraints. Due to high heterogeneity of the quantitative data, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; instead, we present descriptions of study characteristics, outcome measures, and results. Additional themes identified in the quantitative studies are integrated into the typology. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review presents a comprehensive, evidence-based typology of the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, and demonstrates that mistreatment can occur at the level of interaction between the woman and provider, as well as through systemic failures at the health facility and health system levels. We propose this typology be adopted to describe the phenomenon and be used to develop measurement tools and inform future research, programs, and interventions.
BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancy and abortion estimates document trends in sexual and reproductive health and autonomy. These estimates inform and motivate investment in global health programmes and policies. Variability in the availability and reliability of data poses challenges for measuring and monitoring trends in unintended pregnancy and abortion. We developed a new statistical model that jointly estimated unintended pregnancy and abortion that aimed to better inform efforts towards global equity in sexual and reproductive health and rights. METHODS: We developed a model that simultaneously estimated incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion within a Bayesian framework. Data on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based surveys, official statistics, and published studies found through a literature search, and we obtained data on livebirths from the World Population Prospects. We analysed results by World Bank income groups, Sustainable Development Goal regional groupings, and the legal status of abortion. FINDINGS: In 2015-19, there were 121·0 million unintended pregnancies annually (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 112·8-131·5), corresponding to a global rate of 64 unintended pregnancies (UI 60-70) per 1000 women aged 15-49 years. 61% (58-63) of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion (totalling 73·3 million abortions annually [66·7-82·0]), corresponding to a global abortion rate of 39 abortions (36-44) per 1000 women aged 15-49 years. Using World Bank income groups, we found an inverse relationship between unintended pregnancy and income, whereas abortion rates varied non-monotonically across groups. In countries where abortion was restricted, the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion had increased compared with the proportion for 1990-94, and the unintended pregnancy rates were higher than in countries where abortion was broadly legal. INTERPRETATION: Between 1990-94 and 2015-19, the global unintended pregnancy rate has declined, whereas the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion has increased. As a result, the global average abortion rate in 2015-19 was roughly equal to the estimates for 1990-94. Our findings suggest that people in high-income countries have better access to sexual and reproductive health care than those in low-income countries. Our findings indicate that individuals seek abortion even in settings where it is restricted. These findings emphasise the importance of ensuring access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception and abortion care, and for additional investment towards equity in health-care services. FUNDING: UK Aid from the UK Government, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The GRADE-CERQual ('Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research') approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners.