A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of maternity waiting homes in low- and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) provide women with accommodation close to a health facility to enable timely access to skilled care at birth. We examined whether MWH use and availability compared with non-use/unavailability were associated with facility birth, birth with a skilled health professional, attendance at postnatal visit(s) and/or improved maternal and newborn health, in LMICs. We included (non-)randomized controlled, interrupted time series, controlled before-after, cohort and case-control studies published since 1990. Thirteen databases were searched with no language restrictions. Included studies (1991-2020) were assessed as either moderate (n = 9) or weak (n = 10) on individual quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Quality was most frequently compromised by selection bias, confounding and blinding. Only moderate quality studies were analyzed; no studies examining maternal morbidity/mortality met this criterion. MWH users had less relative risk (RR) of perinatal mortality [RR 0.65, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.48, 0.87] (3 studies) and low birthweight (RR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.59) (2 studies) compared with non-users. There were no significant differences between MWH use and non-use for stillbirth (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.18) (3 studies) or neonatal mortality (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.02) (2 studies). Single study results demonstrated higher adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for facility birth (aOR 5.8, 95% CI: 2.6, 13.0) and attendance at all recommended postnatal visits within 6 weeks of birth (aOR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.30, 3.07) for MWH users vs. non-users. The presence vs. absence of an MWH was associated with a 19% increase in facility birth (aOR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.29). The presence vs. absence of a hospital-affiliated MWH predicted a 47% lower perinatal mortality rate (P < 0.01), but at a healthcare centre-level a 13 higher perinatal mortality rate (P < 0.01). Currently, there remains a lack of robust evidence supporting MWH effectiveness. We outline a six-point strategy for strengthening the evidence base.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".