MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353062124 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011071

Effect of community health worker home visits on antenatal care and institutional delivery: an analysis of secondary outcomes from a cluster randomised trial in Mali

2023· article· en· W4353062124 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kassoum Kayentao, Rakesh Ghosh, Lamine Guindo, Caroline Whidden, Emily Treleaven, Calvin Chiu, Diego Lassala, Mohamed Bana Traoré, Jessica Beckerman, Djoumé Diakité, Aly Tembely, Ben Moulaye Idriss, Mohamed Berthé, Jenny Liu, Ari Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaJohnson and Johnson FoundationUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsCluster (spacecraft)MedicineCluster randomised controlled trialRandomized controlled trialNursingFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Though community health workers (CHWs) have improved access to antenatal care (ANC) and institutional delivery in different settings, it is unclear what package and delivery strategy maximises impact. METHODS: This study reports a secondary aim of the Proactive Community Case Management cluster randomised trial, conducted between December 2016 and April 2020 in Mali. It evaluated whether proactive home visits can improve ANC access at a population level compared with passive site-based care. 137 unique village clusters, covering the entire study area, were stratified by health catchment area and distance to the nearest primary health centre. Within each stratum, clusters were randomly assigned to intervention or control arm. CHWs in intervention clusters proactively visited all homes to provide care. In the control clusters, CHWs provided the same services at their fixed community health post to care-seeking patients. Pregnant women 15-49 years old were enrolled in a series of community-based and facility-based visits. We analysed individual-level annual survey data from baseline and 24-month and 36-month follow-up for the secondary outcomes of ANC and institutional delivery, complemented with CHW monitoring data during the trial period. We compared outcomes between: (1) the intervention and control arms, and (2) the intervention period and baseline. RESULTS: With 2576 and 2536 pregnancies from 66 and 65 clusters in the intervention and control arms, respectively, the estimated risk ratios for receiving any ANC was 1.05 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.07), four or more ANC visits was 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.43) and ANC initiated in the first trimester was 1.11 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19), relative to the controls; no differences in institutional delivery were found. However, both arms achieved large improvements in institutional delivery, compared with baseline. Monitoring data show that 19% and 2% of registered pregnancies received at least eight ANC contacts in the intervention and control arms, respectively. Six clusters, three from each arm had to be dropped in the last 2 years of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive home visits increased ANC and the number of antenatal contacts at the clinic and community levels. ANC and institutional delivery can be increased when provided without fees from professional CHWs in upgraded primary care clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02694055.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207