MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304204986 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0001134

A scoping review of the impact of organisational factors on providers and related interventions in LMICs: Implications for respectful maternity care

2022· review· en· W4304204986 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUNICEFWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)ScopusNursingHealth careWorkloadAutonomyMedicineCINAHLGrey literaturePsychologyMedical educationMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have limited understanding of the organisational issues at the health facility-level that impact providers and care as it relates to mistreatment in childbirth, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). By extension, it is not clear what types of facility-level organisational changes or changes in working environments in LMICs could support and enable respectful maternity care (RMC). While there has been relatively more attention to health system pressures related to shortages of staff and other resources as key barriers, other organisational challenges may be less explored in the context of RMC. This scoping review aims to consolidate evidence to address these gaps. We searched literature published in English between 2000-2021 within Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect databases. Study selection was two-fold. Maternal health articles articulating an organisational issue at the facility- level and impact on providers and/or care in an LMIC setting were included. We also searched for literature on interventions but due to the limited number of related intervention studies in maternity care specifically, we expanded intervention study criteria to include all medical disciplines. Organisational issues captured from the non-intervention, maternal health studies, and solutions offered by intervention studies across disciplines were organised thematically and to establish linkages between problems and solutions. Of 5677 hits, 54 articles were included: 41 non-intervention maternal healthcare studies and 13 intervention studies across all medical disciplines. Key organisational challenges relate to high workload, unbalanced division of work, lack of professional autonomy, low pay, inadequate training, poor feedback and supervision, and workplace violence, and these were differentially influenced by resource shortages. Interventions that respond to these challenges focus on leadership, supportive supervision, peer support, mitigating workplace violence, and planning for shortages. While many of these issues were worsened by resource shortages, medical and professional hierarchies also strongly underpinned a number of organisational problems. Frontline providers, particularly midwives and nurses, suffer disproportionately and need greater attention. Transforming institutional leadership and approaches to supervision may be particularly useful to tackle existing power hierarchies that could in turn support a culture of respectful care.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it