https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6587-7688
Figures
Abstract
High quality postnatal care is key for the health and wellbeing of women after childbirth and their newborns. In 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) published global recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal care experience in a new WHO PNC guideline. Evidence regarding appropriate measures to monitor implementation of postnatal care (PNC) according to the WHO PNC guideline is lacking. This scoping review aims to document the measures used to assess the quality of postnatal care and their validity. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Five electronic bibliographic databases were searched together with a grey literature search. Two reviewers independently screened and appraised identified articles. All data on PNC measures were extracted and mapped to the 2022 WHO PNC recommendations according to three categories: i) maternal care, ii) newborn care, iii) health system and health promotion interventions. We identified 62 studies providing measures aligning with the WHO PNC recommendations. For most PNC recommendations there were measures available and the highest number of recommendations were found for breastfeeding and the assessment of the newborn. No measures were found for recommendations related to sedentary behavior, criteria to be assessed before discharge, retention of staff in rural areas and use of digital communication. Measure validity assessment was described in 24 studies (39%), but methods were not standardized. Our review highlights a gap in existing PNC measures for several recommendations in the WHO PNC guideline. Assessment of the validity of PNC measures was limited. Consensus on how the quality of PNC should be measured is needed, involving a selection of priority measures and the development of new measures as appropriate.
Citation: Galle A, Moran AC, Bonet M, Graham K, Muzigaba M, Portela A, et al. (2023) Measures to assess quality of postnatal care: A scoping review. PLOS Glob Public Health 3(2): e0001384. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001384
Editor: Stephen J. McCall, American University of Beirut, LEBANON
Received: November 18, 2022; Accepted: January 27, 2023; Published: February 17, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Galle et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data and related metadata underlying the findings reported in the paper are available in the Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work received support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. AG, AM and ABM received salary from the funders. All other authors did not receive any financial provision for their contribution from the funders. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The days and weeks following childbirth – the postnatal period – is a critical time for women and newborns [1]. Major physical, social and emotional changes occur during this period, yet this is often the most neglected period on the continuum of maternal and newborn care, challenged by the fragmentation of services [2]. Quality postnatal care (PNC) services can have a lifelong positive impact on health and well-being of women, newborns, and children, facilitating a supportive environment for the parents, caregivers and families [3–6].
In March 2022, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a new guideline entitled “WHO recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal experience”, to improve the quality of postnatal care – including provision and experience – for women and newborns with the ultimate goal of improving their health and well-being. Within the guideline, a positive postnatal experience is defined as “an experience in which women, newborns, partners, parents, caregivers and families receive information, reassurance and support in a consistent manner from motivated health workers; where a resourced and flexible health system recognizes the needs of women and babies and respects their cultural context” [7]. The WHO PNC recommendations in the guideline address clinical and non-clinical maternal and newborn care, health promotion and health systems interventions during the six-week period (42 days) after birth [1]. It updates and expands upon the 2014 PNC recommendations and complements WHO existing guidelines on the management of postnatal complications [7]. The recommendations have a wide scope, are for all settings and include aspects such as early child development and mother-infant bonding.The 2022 WHO PNC guideline proposes that implementation and impact of these recommendations should be monitored at facility, sub-national and national levels. Monitoring should be based on clearly defined criteria and with measures that are associated with locally agreed targets.
WHO has placed provision and experience of care are at the core of the WHO framework for improving the quality of care for mothers and newborns around the time of childbirth, including the postnatal period [8]. Within this framework, outcomes include coverage of key practices and people centred outcomes. Currently, tracking PNC coverage at global level is recommended by two contact indicators: proportion of women or newborns receiving PNC care in the health facility or at home in the first 48 hours after childbirth [9–11]. There are also widely used measures that assess the content of postnatal care for the mother and newborn e.g., the percentage of women who received breastfeeding support, immunization of the newborn and provision of postpartum family planning services [12,13]. In low-and middle -income settings, these measures are typically collected from population-based household surveys (e.g., the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) database and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) [14,15] and some from routine health information systems. Only recently, maternal and newborn health experts have emphasized the need to measure not only coverage and content of PNC, but to also include quality measures focusing on how interventions are delivered by including people centred outcomes [2,16]. Despite a growing number of measures to assess quality of PNC in the literature [17,18], globally agreed standards are lacking [19,20], and there are limitations in terms of validity.
Recent reviews have focused on antenatal care measures and measures on the experience of facility-based care for pregnant women and newborns, but no similar exercise has been conducted regarding PNC [21,22]. Reviews and guidance documents on broader maternal and newborn health indicators are available as well [23–25], but often focus is on facility-based care in the first 24 hours which overlooks the 6-week postnatal period and especially care for the woman and newborn at home. This scoping review aims to document the availability and validity of existing PNC measures for quality of postnatal care described in the peer-reviewed and grey literature based on the 2022 WHO PNC guideline.
Materials and methods
Study design
The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework [26] (reference 10.17605/OSF.IO/PSFXB) and outlines the methodology for the design and conduct of the scoping review. The review process was based on the Arksey and O’Malley’s five step scoping review framework: i) identifying the research question; ii) identifying relevant studies; iii) selecting studies; iv) charting the data; and v) collating summarizing and reporting the results [27]. Results are presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews) [28] (S1 Checklist).
Definitions
“Measures” are used by governments, researchers, and other institutions to assess the quality of PNC, including provision and experience of care. In this review measures can be broadly described as the level or state of an object under study, whereas indicators more narrowly are considered as indirect representations with a quantitative nature [29,30]. By using measures as an umbrella term, all kind of assessments of quality of care will be considered in this review, including those informed by qualitative research. PNC is defined as care of women after childbirth and newborns, including the promotion of healthy practices, disease prevention, and detection and management of problems during the first six weeks after birth [1].
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The PCC (Population/Concept/Context) framework of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [31] was used to articulate the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria:
- Peer reviewed scientific and grey literature, published between 2010 and 2022.
- Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies.
- Describing quality of PNC, including provision or experience of care.
- -ndividual studies or systematic reviews focused on developing or improving indicators related to PNC.
- Studies in languages mastered by the review team: English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, and Arabic.
Exclusion criteria:
- Studies focusing solely on medical health outcomes, for example in the context of randomized controlled trials new therapies.
- Systematic reviews not including the development or improvement of indicators, to avoid double inclusion of studies (as a single study and in a review).
- Studies only reporting on PNC uptake (Yes/No) in one indicator, without including any measurement of provision or experience of care. Reporting on the actual content (=provision) or experience of PNC was a requirement for inclusion.
- Publications without detailed methods and findings (e.g., conference abstracts, study protocol, commentary).
Search strategy
The scoping review included literature searches from 1st January 2010 to 1st March 2022. Search strategies were developed for PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases (S1 Text). Grey literature was obtained using the Google search engine by reviewing the first ten pages. In addition, the websites of the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) database, the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), the Reproductive Health Survey (RHS) database, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) publications and WHO publications [14,15,32–34] were consulted. Lastly, the Global Index Medicus was reviewed for both grey literature and peer reviewed articles. Keywords for these searches were postnatal care, quality of care and measures as this database does only support use of simple keywords. Search terms concerning quality of care were developed based on the definition of quality of care of both the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and WHO frameworks [35,36]. The IOM established six domains of health care quality in 2001, which have been re-utilized by many other stakeholders, including WHO. The six dimensions state that health care should be safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, equitable. The WHO framework of quality of care (2018) defines eight domains of quality of care, with quality standards for each domain, and encompasses both the provision and experience of care [37].
Study selection
Citations were imported into Rayyan, an online tool developed to support the screening and data extraction processes [23]. Two independent reviewers (AG and GT) screened the title and abstract, followed by full-text assessment of potentially eligible studies. Conflicts were resolved upon discussion with a third reviewer (ABM).
Data extraction and analysis
A data extraction form in Microsoft Excel was piloted with the first 15 articles and adapted with input from ABM, AG, BS and GTK. The final data extraction table included authors, publication year, purpose of study, year of study, study design, geographical location of study by country and WHO region [38], measures used for assessing PNC, if measures were clearly defined, if any indicator testing or validation performed (such as reliability, accuracy, feasibility), funding sources and declared conflicting interests. Data-extraction was conducted by a team of three reviewers (AG, BS and GTK). BS and GTK divided the articles for data extraction, while AG reviewed all articles and extracted all the data independently as a double check. The completed data extraction sheet can be found as a supplementary file (S1 Table).
The measures were then mapped according to the 2022 WHO PNC recommendations [7], first by the three guideline categories: i) maternal care; ii) newborn care; and iii) health system and health promotion interventions and then subsequently to specific recommendations within these categories (Fig 1). Experience of care measures identified (e.g., did you feel respected?) were mostly not related to specific PNC recommendations and therefore where only mapped according to the three overarching guideline categories. In this manuscript we refer to the studies (including scientific studies and grey literature reports) with identified measures, while the supplementary file (S1 Table) gives a an overview of all identified measures per study. In addition, a narrative description was given of the content of the measures. The results were further analyzed using descriptive numerical summary analysis and narrative synthesis.
To give an overview of what is available and what is missing in the current literature regarding quality of care measures for PNC according to the 2022 WHO PNC guideline, reasons for gaps in the literature were analyzed according to the framework of Robinson et al. (2011) [39]. The framework proposes 4 categories of reasons for research gaps: i) insufficient or imprecise information, ii) biased information, iii) inconsistent results, iv) not the right information. All reasons for research gaps were described narratively within the given categories, only the last category was not applicable to this review.
Results
The bibliographic database searches initially identified 2743 titles and abstracts. The grey literature search identified additional 31 titles and abstracts. After removal of duplicates, 2017 title and abstract were screened, resulting in 127 potential records to be included. After full text screening, 62 records (48 peer reviewed articles and 14 grey literature documents) were included in the review. A flowchart based on PRISMA guidelines is presented in Fig 2 [40].
Study characteristics
Studies most commonly took place in the African Region (n=20; 32%), followed by the European Region (n=10; 16%) and the South-East Region (n=10; 16%) (Table 1). Five studies (8%) took place in the Region of the Americas and five studies (8%) in the Western Pacific Region. Only one (3%) took place in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and 11 (18%) in countries from multiple regions. The most used study design was a cross sectional design (n=38, 61%) followed by a (quasi-) experimental design for evaluating interventions (n=5, 8%). Five included studies (8%) were national or international guideline documents on PNC services and six (10%) were validation studies. Another eight studies (13%) aimed at developing a new scale or instrument. Most included studies had clear definitions of their measurements, but six out of 62 articles (10%) did not have clear definitions for the used measures or definitions were not clear. Most studies (n=19, 31%) relied on data collected from women surveys followed by data extracted from population-based household data (n=11, 18%). Seven studies (11%) relied on data collected from observations and four studies (7%) used health facility records as data source. Thirteen studies (21%) used a combination of data sources, mainly observations with women surveys. Eight studies did not define the data source.
Provision of care measures - women
We found existing quality of care measures for 19 of the 24 numbered recommendations of the WHO PNC guideline (Table 2). Number of studies (including scientific studies and reports from grey literature) per recommendation varied from 0-18. Most studies with measures were found for the recommendation regarding postpartum contraception and physical assessment of the woman. Other recommendations with at least four different studies providing measures were: HIV catch-up testing, local cooling for perineal pain relief, pharmacological relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution and undertaking physical activity. The following recommendations for the care of women had no measures: limiting sedentary behavior, screening for tuberculosis disease, postnatal pelvic floor muscle training and preventive schistosomiasis treatment. Most of the recommendations with no measures are either those that are not routinely recommended or those that were context specific (Table 2). Looking at the different categories of interventions, especially measures on mental health interventions were scarce (Table 2).
Provision of care measures – Newborns
We found existing quality of care measures for 16 of 19 numbered recommendations (Table 3). Number of studies per recommendation varied from 0-34. The following recommendations had a wide range of studies (15 or more) providing measures: assessment of the newborn for danger signs, umbilical cord care, immunization for the prevention of infections and exclusive breastfeeding. No measures were identified related to nutritional interventions (Vitamin A and D supplementation). Also, very few studies (n=2) provided measures for universal screening of the newborn (for abnormalities of the eye, hearing impairment or hyperbilirubinemia).
Health systems and health promotion interventions
We found existing quality of care measures for 8 of 12 recommendations (Table 4). Number of studies per recommendation varied from 0-33. A high number of studies provided measures related to the schedules for PNC contacts (Table 4), in both the peer-reviewed and grey literature. All other recommendations regarding the health system and health promotion interventions had four or less studies providing measures. Specific quality of care measures focusing on home-based care (recommendation 48 and 53) were limited. For the recommendations regarding the use of digital technologies for targeted communication and using digital birth notifications, no measures were found in the literature.
Experience of care measures
We found experience of care measures for i) maternal care, ii) newborn care and iii) health system and health promotion interventions (Table 5). The highest number of studies was found for measures regarding the experience of maternal care. Experience of maternal care measures often focused on specific concepts such as satisfaction [51,53,62,66,67,79,86,93] or respectful care [15,25,41,91,94,95] in a clinical setting. Studies including experience of care measures related to newborn care included satisfaction with (information related to) newborn care [53,60,63,91,96] or if contact with the newborn was facilitated [95]. Studies concerning experience of care measures related to health system and health promotion interventions included measures related to continuity of care [45,60,62,63,93], involvement or support of the woman’s partner [60,62,91,93,95] and home-visits [60,67,86]. All studies measuring experience of postnatal care considered the perspective of the woman only and collected data from women only.
Validity of quality of care measures
In 24 out of 62 studies (39%) the authors conducted a validity assessment of the used quality of care measure. Methods used in the different studies to validate indicators or measures varied (Fig 3). Of the 24 studies reporting validation, seven used Cronbach alpha to assess for reliability [41,60,63,67,96–98], eight studies used area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) [47,48,52,55,56,58,88,93] and two studies used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) [53,96]. One study used the Delphi method, and one used an external criterion [99]. Three studies used both Cronbach alpha and CFA [46,91,100]. For three studies it was unclear what the author used to validate the given quality of care measure [25,94,95].
Legend: AUC=Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve; CFA=Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Measures not mapped to the WHO PNC recommendations
PNC quality of care measures not mapped to the recommendations can be found in a supplementary file (S1 Table). These included quality of care measures for care immediately after childbirth, which is not addressed in the 2022 WHO PNC guideline but in the WHO guideline “Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience”. Also specific quality of care measures for small or sick newborns could not be mapped to the recommendations, since the guideline is targeting routine care for healthy newborns and women after childbirth. Other measures were often very (context) specific (e.g. “did you receive a hot drink”), making it impossible to map them to 2022 WHO PNC recommendations.
Gaps in measurement
Research gaps were identified for three of the four listed categories of the framework of Robinson et al. (2011) [39]. We found 11 recommendations [recommendation 3,7,15-17,23,35,36,46,54,55] with no available quality of care measures in the literature (category 1: insufficient or imprecise information). In addition, we observed that all experience of care data were collected from women only, while the 2022 WHO PNC guideline recommends responsive care for women, their partners and families. Only one study also asked questions about how the partner was treated as an element of experience of care [91]. Majority of studies also focused on very specific elements of PNC such as the care provided in the facility within 48 hours, women’s satisfaction with care or the interventions performed during a postnatal consultation at the facility. Studies providing PNC measures combining different aspects of PNC quality (provision of and experience of care) included the postnatal care quality standards by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [62], the multidimensional satisfaction questionnaire (the WOMBPNSQ) developed by Smith (2011) [93], quality indicators for PNC after discharge by Helsloot et al. (2011) [45] and previously developed quality standards by WHO [25,44,57].
Examining gaps in the literature according to the second category (category 2: biased information), we found that 61% (n=38) of the studies did not report any validation or testing of measures, which means these studies might use measures with low validity. Studies reporting validated quality of care measures often provided little information on how this validity assessment was performed.
Lastly, we found that the definition/operationalization of the quality of care measures per recommendation varied widely in the different studies (category 3: inconsistent results). The recommendation regarding a physical assessment of the women for example included a wide variety of measures. Some measures included different components of a physical examination such as blood pressure screening, abdominal exam, check of anemia, while others did not specify subcomponents or used a different set of physical examinations. Definitions of most measures (e.g., measures related to breastfeeding counselling or receiving a PNC check-up) also varied according to the timeframe they used: within one hour, within 24h, within two days and within 6 weeks. This implies that some wide used measures (such as exclusive breastfeeding or family planning counselling) were operationalized differently within different study settings and as a consequence cannot be compared. Some proposed measures were also poorly defined in the articles or very broadly defined. Such broadly defined measures included “adequate postnatal counselling”, “treated with respect at all times”, or “receiving breastfeeding counselling”.
For the last category of the framework (“Not the right information”) no specific research gaps were identified.
Discussion
In this review we gave an overview of existing measures assessing quality of PNC mapped to the 2022 WHO PNC recommendations. We found that for a small number of recommendations related to broader global health issues e.g., breastfeeding and postpartum contraception an array of measures existed while for recommendations addressing more specific postnatal care issues e.g., nutritional interventions, universal screening of the newborn, mental health interventions and home-based care measures were scarce. Also, for relatively new recommendations such as on sedentary behavior and criteria to be assessed before discharge no measures existed.
Several studies within our review used a limited set of measures (e.g., the percentage of women and newborn with a postnatal check-up within two days or the percentage of women being satisfied with care) to assess PNC “quality”. Some measures were also poorly defined, leaving doubt on what care was actually provided. For this reason, “uptake of PNC” was not considered as a measure for quality of postnatal care within our review, because uptake alone does not reveal actual provision (what care was provided) or experience of care as outlined in the WHO quality of care framework [8]. Further efforts among researchers to be transparent and distinguish the different concepts of uptake, coverage, content and the umbrella term “quality of care” are needed to improve comparability of data across different studies and settings. Only a minority of studies provided measures for a broader understanding of quality of care, including both provision of and experience of care [37]. Recognition of the multifaceted nature of quality of care is critical for prioritising health interventions within postnatal care and increasing uptake of services along the continuum [101].
The tendency to focus on individual clinical interventions (and corresponding measures) for the woman or the newborn might be related to the fragmented organization of PNC in the health system [102,103]. In almost all countries, PNC is still strictly divided into women and newborn services, often from different health providers, with services sometimes further subdivided into different specialties such as nutrition, family planning and neonatal screening [102,104,105]. This approach towards PNC fails to recognize the mother-baby dyad and might create barriers in accessing a comprehensive package of care [3,4,6,104,105]. While globally the importance of integrated PNC has been recognised, policies and practise are still lagging behind [45,104,106]. Together with a change in organisation of PNC on the ground, measures to evaluate quality of PNC should also aim for a more holistic assessment. Ideally, quality of PNC is measured by considering both provision and experience of care and also recognizing the importance of the mother-baby dyad.
Noteworthy, experience of care measures within our review all relied on data from women only. Also including the perspective of partners, parents, caregivers and families will be needed to guarantee a positive postnatal care experience for all people involved.
Majority of measures were focused on facility-based care, revealing a gap in measures covering the postnatal period after discharge at home. Over the last years many countries have shortened the length of stay after birth [107–109], with home visits by trained health workers becoming a more important part of PNC [110,111]. More quality of care measures focusing on the care at home (including professional care by health care workers, self-care and family care practices in the home) will be needed to also monitor and guarantee PNC quality outside the facility.
There were inconsistencies in how PNC quality measures were defined and measured in different studies and data collection platforms, hampering comparability across settings. Two recent reviews on antenatal care measures and measures on the experience of facility-based care reported the same challenges [21,22], showing that the lack of consensus on well-defined measures seem to be an overarching problem in the field maternal and newborn health. In order to improve comparability across settings, clearly defined PNC quality measures need to be prioritized together with standardized meta-data for those indicators.
In line with other reviews on quality of care measures [21,112], we found that most indicators were not validated or tested. Indicator validation and testing is complicated, as there are various methods depending on the type of indicator and type of data collection platform. Recently “The Improving Coverage Measurement (ICM) Core Group” has developed a standard for population-based intervention coverage indicators, but this is a very time and resource intensive procedure not suitable for all quality of care indicators [113]. WHO and other researchers rather propose that indicator validity should be considered as an ongoing process without rigid cut-off points [114,115]. In order to facilitate harmonized monitoring and evaluation of maternal and newborn health measures, WHO has developed an online toolkit with guidance for indicator validation and testing [114]. After defining priority indicators for monitoring the quality of PNC, additional validation and testing work will be needed to ensure robust measures within different data collection platforms.
This review has some methodological limitations. The keywords “postnatal care”, “quality of care” and “measures” were used in our search strategy. However, some articles might have included important measures for PNC quality but might not have referred to these keywords. Especially studies on experience of care might not refer to “measures” or “indicators”, but still provide important data on experience of care measurement. An additional review specifically focusing on experience of care in the postnatal period might be needed to identify all available experience of care measures within the literature. Strengths include a rigorous process by adhering to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews and screening the literature by two researchers independently [28]. Lastly, possible publication bias was minimised by incorporating a wide range of non-peer-reviewed papers and (survey) reports.
Conclusion
The 2022 WHO PNC guideline provides comprehensive recommendations for strengthening postnatal care for a positive postnatal experience for women and newborns. However, currently measures are inadequate in distribution and standardisation for effective monitoring quality PNC as depicted in the 2022 WHO PNC guideline. The development of a monitoring framework will require reviewing the quality of care measures identified in this review, a process for prioritization, as well as the development of a research agenda to develop and test new measures as appropriate that can robustly capture the quality of PNC.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001384.s001
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the librarian of Ghent University, Ms. Nele Pauwels, for reviewing and improving the search strategy.
References
- 1. WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn. 2013.
- 2. Sacks E, Langlois É v. Postnatal care: increasing coverage, equity, and quality. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4:e442–3. pmid:27185467
- 3. Finlayson K, Crossland N, Bonet M, Downe S. What matters to women in the postnatal period: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0231415. pmid:32320424
- 4. D’Haenens F, van Rompaey B, Swinnen E, Dilles T, Beeckman K. The effects of continuity of care on the health of mother and child in the postnatal period: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30:749–60. pmid:31121019
- 5. Djellouli N, Mann S, Nambiar B, Meireles P, Miranda D, Barros H, et al. Improving postpartum care delivery and uptake by implementing context-specific interventions in four countries in Africa: a realist evaluation of the Missed Opportunities in Maternal and Infant Health (MOMI) project. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2:e000408. pmid:29225949
- 6. Haran C, van Driel M, Mitchell BL, Brodribb WE. Clinical guidelines for postpartum women and infants in primary care-a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14. pmid:24475888
- 7.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal experience. Geneva; 2022.
- 8.
WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549912. Accessed 22 Dec 2022.
- 9. Öhrn U, Parment H, Hildingsson I. Quality improvement in postnatal care: Findings from two cohorts of women in Sweden. Eur J Midwifery. 2020;4 November:1–9.
- 10. Peven K, Day LT, Bick D, Purssell E, Taylor C, Akuze J, et al. Household Survey Measurement of Newborn Postnatal Care: Coverage, Quality Gaps, and Internal Inconsistencies in Responses. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2021;9:737–51. pmid:34933972
- 11. Salam RA, Mansoor T, Mallick D, Lassi ZS, Das JK, Bhutta ZA. Essential childbirth and postnatal interventions for improved maternal and neonatal health. Reprod Health. 2014;11 Suppl 1 Suppl 1. pmid:25177795
- 12. Kanté AM, Chung CE, Larsen AM, Exavery A, Tani K, Phillips JF. Factors associated with compliance with the recommended frequency of postnatal care services in three rural districts of Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15. pmid:26689723
- 13. Yawson AE, Awoonor-Williams JK, Sagoe-Moses I, Aboagye PK, Yawson AO, Senaya LK, et al. Bottleneck analysis approach to accelerate newborn care services in two regions in Ghana: implications for national newborn care. Public Health. 2016;141:245–54. pmid:27932010
- 14.
UNICEF. MICS Survey. https://mics.unicef.org/surveys. Accessed 16 Jun 2022.
- 15.
DHS Program. The DHS Program. Demographic and Health Surveys. https://dhsprogram.com. Accessed 16 Jun 2022.
- 16. Koblinsky M, Moyer CA, Calvert C, Campbell J, Campbell OMR, Feigl AB, et al. Series Maternal Health 6 Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31333-2.
- 17. Saturno-Hernández PJ, Martínez-Nicolás I, Moreno-Zegbe E, Fernández-Elorriaga M, Poblano-Verástegui O. Indicators for monitoring maternal and neonatal quality care: A systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:1–11.
- 18. Afulani PA, Diamond-Smith N, Golub G, Sudhinaraset M. Development of a tool to measure person-centered maternity care in developing settings: Validation in a rural and urban Kenyan population. Reprod Health. 2017;14:1–18.
- 19. Benova L, Owolabi O, Radovich E, Wong KLM, Macleod D, Langlois E v., et al. Provision of postpartum care to women giving birth in health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-sectional study using Demographic and Health Survey data from 33 countries. PLoS Med. 2019;16. pmid:31644531
- 20.
World Health Organization. WHO Technical Consultation on Postpartum and Postnatal Care. Geneva; 2010.
- 21. Larson E, Sharma J, Nasiri K, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö. Measuring experiences of facility-based care for pregnant women and newborns: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5:e003368. pmid:33219000
- 22. Lattof SR, Tuncalp Ö, Moran AC, Bucagu M, Chou D, Diaz T, et al. Developing measures for WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience: a conceptual framework and scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;9:e024130.
- 23. Moller AB, Newby H, Hanson C, Morgan A, el Arifeen S, Chou D, et al. Measures matter: A scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators. PLoS One. 2018;13.
- 24. Saturno-Hernández PJ, Martínez-Nicolás I, Moreno-Zegbe E, Fernández-Elorriaga M, Poblano-Verástegui O. Indicators for monitoring maternal and neonatal quality care: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:25. pmid:30634946
- 25.
World Health Organization. Quality, Equity, Dignity A Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health QUALITY OF CARE FOR MATERNAL AND NEWBORN HEALTH: A MONITORING FRAMEWORK FOR NETWORK COUNTRIES. Geneva; 2019.
- 26.
OSF | Indicators and measures to assess coverage, content and quality of postnatal care: a literature scoping review protocol. https://osf.io/vjrp7/. Accessed 6 Jul 2022.
- 27. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. https://doi.org/101080/1364557032000119616. 2007;8:19–32.
- 28. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. pmid:30178033
- 29.
Social Measurement: What Stands in Its Way? on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971466?seq=1. Accessed 3 Jun 2022.
- 30.
Payne G, Payne J. Key Concepts in Social Research. SAGE Publications, Ltd; 2004.
- 31. Pollock D, Davies EL, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77:2102–13. pmid:33543511
- 32.
Reproductive Health Surveys | Publications | Reproductive Health | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/global/tools/surveys.htm. Accessed 12 Aug 2022.
- 33.
U.S. Agency for International Development. https://www.usaid.gov/. Accessed 12 Aug 2022.
- 34.
Publications. https://www.who.int/publications/. Accessed 12 Aug 2022.
- 35. Tzelepis F, Sanson-Fisher RW, Zucca AC, Fradgley EA. Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:831–5. pmid:26150703
- 36.
Defining Quality of Care - Medicare - NCBI Bookshelf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235476/. Accessed 3 Jun 2022.
- 37.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva; 2022.
- 38.
Countries | World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/countries/. Accessed 6 Jul 2022.
- 39. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA. Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1325–30. pmid:21937195
- 40.
PRISMA. https://prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram.aspx. Accessed 6 Jul 2022.
- 41. Alkasseh AS, Mwaafy S, Abu-El-Noor N, Abu-El-Noor M. Clients’ Perception Toward Quality of Postnatal Care in The Gaza Strip, Palestine: A Direction for Health Policy Change". Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery. 2020;30:61–9.
- 42. Biswas TK, Sujon H, Rahman MH, Perry HB, Chowdhury ME. Quality of maternal and newborn healthcare services in two public hospitals of Bangladesh: identifying gaps and provisions for improvement. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:488. pmid:31823747
- 43. Devane D, Barrett N, Gallen A, O’Reilly MF, Nadin M, Conway G, et al. Identifying and prioritising midwifery care process metrics and indicators: A Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus process. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19. pmid:31182055
- 44. Flenady V, Wojcieszek AM, Fjeldheim I, Friberg IK, Nankabirwa V, Jani J v, et al. eRegistries: indicators for the WHO Essential Interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:293. pmid:27716088
- 45. Helsloot K, Walraevens M, Besauw S v, S VPA, Devos H, Holsbeeck A v, et al. A systematic approach towards the development of quality indicators for postnatal care after discharge in Flanders, Belgium. Midwifery. 2017;48:60–8. pmid:28347927
- 46. Kambala C, Lohmann J, Mazalale J, Brenner S, M DA, Muula AS, et al. How do Malawian women rate the quality of maternal and newborn care? Experiences and perceptions of women in the central and southern regions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:169. pmid:26275999
- 47. Liu L, Li M, Yang L, Ju L, Tan B, Walker N, et al. {Measuring Coverage in MNCH: A Validation Study Linking Population Survey Derived Coverage to Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Care Records in Rural China}. PLoS One. pmid:23667429
- 48. McCarthy KJ, Blanc AK, Warren CE, Mdawida B. Women’s recall of maternal and newborn interventions received in the postnatal period: a validity study in Kenya and Swaziland. J Glob Health. 2018;8:10605. pmid:29904605
- 49. Okawa S, Win HH, Leslie HH, Nanishi K, Shibanuma A, Aye PP, et al. Quality gap in maternal and newborn healthcare: a cross-sectional study in Myanmar. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4:e001078–e001078. pmid:30997160
- 50. Okawa S, Gyapong M, Leslie H, Shibanuma A, Kikuchi K, Yeji F, et al. Effect of continuum-of-care intervention package on improving contacts and quality of maternal and newborn healthcare in Ghana: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025347–e025347. pmid:31511278
- 51. Warren C, Mwangi A, Oweya E, Kamunya R, Koskei N. Safeguarding maternal and newborn health: improving the quality of postnatal care in Kenya. Int J Qual Health Care. 2010;22:24–30. pmid:19946120
- 52. Weldearegay HG, Medhanyie AA, Godefay H, Kahsay AB. Beyond health system contact: measuring and validating quality of childbirth care indicators in primary level facilities of northern Ethiopia. Reprod Health. 2020;17:73. pmid:32448353
- 53. Wickramasinghe SA, Gunathunga MW, DKNN H. Client perceived quality of the postnatal care provided by public sector specialized care institutions following a normal vaginal delivery in Sri Lanka: a cross sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:485. pmid:31818264
- 54. Rios-Zertuche D, Zúñiga-Brenes P, Palmisano E, Hernández B, Schaefer A, Johanns CK, et al. Methods to measure quality of care and quality indicators through health facility surveys in low- And middle-income countries. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2019;31:183–90. pmid:29917087
- 55. Blanc AK, Diaz C, McCarthy KJ, Berdichevsky K. Measuring progress in maternal and newborn health care in Mexico: validating indicators of health system contact and quality of care. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:255. pmid:27577266
- 56. McCarthy KJ, Blanc AK, Warren CE, Kimani J, Mdawida B, Ndwidga C. Can surveys of women accurately track indicators of maternal and newborn care? A validity and reliability study in Kenya. J Glob Health. 2016;6:20502.
- 57.
World Health Organization. STANDARDS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF MATERNAL AND NEWBORN CARE IN HEALTH FACILITIES. Geneva; 2016.
- 58. McCarthy KJ, Blanc AK, Warren C, Bajracharya A, Bellows B. Validating women’s reports of antenatal and postnatal care received in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Kenya. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5.
- 59. Warren CE, Abuya T, Kanya L, Obare F, Njuki R, Temmerman M, et al. A cross sectional comparison of postnatal care quality in facilities participating in a maternal health voucher program versus non-voucher facilities in Kenya. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15.
- 60. Adnan FI, Noor NM, Junoh NAM. {Associated factors of labor satisfaction and predictor of postnatal satisfaction in the north-east of Peninsular Malaysia}. PLoS One.
- 61. Grover K, Khanna P, Chayal V, Verma R, Kapoor R, Kumar T, et al. Evaluation of home based postnatal care provided by accredited social health activist worker in a rural community of Haryana: a cross-sectional study. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2019;6:5123.
- 62.
NICE. Postnatal care Quality standard - NICE Guidelines. London; 2013.
- 63. Nagórska M, Darmochwał-Kolarz D. Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Quality of Discharge Teaching Scale (QDTS) for postpartum mothers. Kontakt. 2021;23:232–9.
- 64. Selvaraj R, Ramakrishnan J, Sahu SK, Kar SS, Roy G. Community-based assessment of postnatal care in Puducherry-A cross-sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10:798–803. pmid:34041079
- 65. Brenes-Monge A, Yáñez-Álvarez I, Meneses-León J, Poblano-Verástegui O, Vértiz-Ramírez JDJ, Saturno-Hernández PJ. Aproximación a la calidad de la atención durante el embarazo, parto y posparto en mujeres con factores de riesgo obstétrico en México. Salud Publica Mex. 2020;62:798–809.
- 66. Creanga AA, Gullo S, Kuhlmann AKS, Msiska TW, Galavotti C. Is quality of care a key predictor of perinatal health care utilization and patient satisfaction in Malawi? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17:150. pmid:28532462
- 67. Norhayati MN, A FI, Y NA. Psychometric properties of the Malay version Women’s Views of Birth Postnatal Satisfaction Questionnaire using the Rasch measurement model: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:711. pmid:34686139
- 68.
2016 Kigoma Reproductive Health Survey Kigoma Region, Tanzania.
- 69.
2018 Kigoma Reproductive Health Survey Kigoma Region, Tanzania Final Report.
- 70. Sami S, Kerber K, Kenyi S, Amsalu R, Tomczyk B, Jackson D, et al. State of newborn care in South Sudan’s displacement camps: a descriptive study of facility-based deliveries. Reprod Health. 2017;14:161. pmid:29187210
- 71. Allen E, Schellenberg J, Berhanu D, Cousens S, Marchant T. Associations between increased intervention coverage for mothers and newborns and the number and quality of contacts between families and health workers: An analysis of cluster level repeat cross sectional survey data in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0199937–e0199937. pmid:30071026
- 72. Horwood C, Haskins L, Phakathi S, McKerrow N. A health systems strengthening intervention to improve quality of care for sick and small newborn infants: results from an evaluation in district hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19:29. pmid:30678646
- 73. Magge H, Nahimana E, Mugunga JC, Nkikabahizi F, Tadiri E, Sayinzoga F, et al. The All Babies Count Initiative: Impact of a Health System Improvement Approach on Neonatal Care and Outcomes in Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2020;8:0. pmid:33008847
- 74. MICS, UNICEF. Encuesta Nacional de Niñas, Niños y adolescentes. 2019.
- 75. Carvajal-Aguirre L, Amouzou A, Mehra V, Ziqi M, Zaka N, Newby H. Gap between contact and content in maternal and newborn care: An analysis of data from 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. J Glob Health. 2017;7:20501. pmid:29423178
- 76. Silvestre MAA, Mannava P, Corsino MA, Capili DS, Calibo AP, Tan CF, et al. Improving immediate newborn care practices in Philippine hospitals: Impact of a national quality of care initiative 2008-2015. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2018;30:537–44. pmid:29617838
- 77. Patel AB, Simmons EM, Rao SR, Moore J, Nolen TL, Goldenberg RL, et al. Evaluating the effect of care around labor and delivery practices on early neonatal mortality in the Global Network’s Maternal and Newborn Health Registry. Reprod Health. 2020;17:156. pmid:33256790
- 78. Moxon SG, Ruysen H, Kerber KJ, Amouzou A, Fournier S, Grove J, et al. Count every newborn; a measurement improvement roadmap for coverage data. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:S8–S8. pmid:26391444
- 79. Verma A, Paul SB. Women’s experience of post-natal care: A study from Uttarakhand, India. Asian J Women Stud. 2022;28:85–110.
- 80. Målqvist M, Pun A, Kc A. Essential newborn care after home delivery in Nepal. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45:202–7. pmid:28212598
- 81. Kaur J, Franzen SRP, Newton-Lewis T, Murphy G. Readiness of public health facilities to provide quality maternal and newborn care across the state of Bihar, India: A cross-sectional study of district hospitals and primary health centres. BMJ Open. 2019;9. pmid:31362965
- 82. Sarin E, Livesley N. Quality Improvement Approaches Associated with Quality of Childbirth Care Practices in Six Indian States. Indian Pediatr. 2018;55:789–92. pmid:30345987
- 83. Ouedraogo M, Kurji J, Abebe L, Labonté R, Morankar S, Bedru KH, et al. A quality assessment of Health Management Information System (HMIS) data for maternal and child health in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213600–e0213600. pmid:30856239
- 84. Bhattacharya AA, Umar N, Audu A, Felix H, Allen E, Schellenberg JRM, et al. Quality of routine facility data for monitoring priority maternal and newborn indicators in DHIS2: A case study from Gombe State, Nigeria. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0211265–e0211265. pmid:30682130
- 85. Murphy E, Best E. The Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Service: a decade of achievement in the health of women and babies in NSW. N S W Public Health Bull. 2012;23:68–72. pmid:22697102
- 86. Dauletyarova M, Semenova Y, Kaylubaeva G, Manabaeva G, Khismetova Z, Akilzhanova Z, et al. Are women of east Kazakhstan satisfied with the quality of maternity care? Implementing the WHO tool to assess the quality of hospital services. Iran J Public Health. 2016;45:729–38. pmid:27648415
- 87. Carvajal-Aguirre L, Mehra V, Amouzou A, Khan SM, Vaz L, Guenther T, et al. Does health facility service environment matter for the receipt of essential newborn care? Linking health facility and household survey data in Malawi. J Glob Health. pmid:29423185
- 88. Madaj B, Smith H, Mathai M, Roos N, van den Broek N. Quality of maternal and newborn care Developing global indicators for quality of maternal and newborn care: a feasibility assessment.
- 89. World Health Organization. Every newborn action plan and postnatal care for mother and newborn - Report if a regional meeting, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 2014.
- 90. Dettrick Z, Gouda HN, Hodge A, Jimenez-Soto E. Measuring Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Developing Countries Using Demographic and Health Surveys. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0157110–e0157110. pmid:27362354
- 91. Sjetne IS, Iversen HH, Kjøllesdal JG. A questionnaire to measure women’s experiences with pregnancy, birth and postnatal care: instrument development and assessment following a national survey in Norway. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15. pmid:26294064
- 92. Millogo T, Kourouma RK, Meda B, Ivlabehire , Agbre-Yace ML, Dosso A, et al. {Determinants of childbirth care quality along the care continuum in limited resource settings: A structural equation modeling analysis of cross-sectional data from Burkina Faso and Cote d’Ivoire}. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.
- 93. Smith L. Postnatal care: development of a psychometric multidimensional satisfaction questionnaire (the WOMBPNSQ) to assess women’s views. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE. 2011;61:628–37. pmid:22152835
- 94. Arsenault C, English M, Gathara D, Malata A, Mandala W, Kruk ME. Variation in competent and respectful delivery care in Kenya and Malawi: a retrospective analysis of national facility surveys. Trop Med Int Health. 2020;25:442–53. pmid:31828923
- 95. Claudia Uribe T, Aixa Contreras M, Luis Villarroel D. Adaptation and validation of the Maternal Welfare Scale in childbirth situations: Second version for integral assistance scenarios. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2014;79:154–60.
- 96. Camacho FT, Weisman CS, Anderson RT, Hillemeier MM, Schaefer EW, Paul IM. Development and validation of a scale measuring satisfaction with maternal and newborn health care following childbirth. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16:997–1007. pmid:21626093
- 97. Hildingsson IM S, in-Bojo A-K. {`What is could indeed be better’-Swedish women’s perceptions of early postnatal care}. Midwifery. {737-744}. pmid:20594628
- 98. Zeyneloğlu S, Kısa S, Özberk H, Badem A. Predictors and measurement of satisfaction with postpartum care in a government hospital. Nurs Health Sci. 2017;19:198–203. pmid:28247496
- 99. Lumadi TG, Buch E. Patients’ satisfaction with midwifery services at a regional hospital and its referring clinics in the limpopo province of South Africa. Afr J Nurs Midwifery. 2011;13:14–28.
- 100. Peters M, Kolip P, Schäfers R. A questionnaire to measure the quality of midwifery care in the postpartum period from women’s point of view: development and psychometric testing of MMAYpostpartum. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:412. pmid:34078295
- 101. Hanefeld J, Powell-Jackson T, Balabanova D. Appréhender et évaluer la qualité des soins: Composer avec la complexité. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95:368–74.
- 102. Haskins JL, Phakathi SP, Grant M, Mntambo N, Wilford A, Horwood CM. Fragmentation of maternal, child and HIV services: A missed opportunity to provide comprehensive care. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2016;8. pmid:28155320
- 103. Gresh A, Cohen M, Anderson J, Glass N. Postpartum care content and delivery throughout the African continent: An integrative review. Midwifery. 2021;97. pmid:33740519
- 104. Auguste T, Gulati M. Recommendations and Conclusions Presidential Task Force on Redefining the Postpartum Visit Committee on Obstetric Practice Optimizing Postpartum Care Committee Opinion Optimizing Postpartum Care e141. OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION Number. 2018;131.
- 105. Lassi ZS, Majeed A, Rashid S, Yakoob MY, Bhutta ZA. The interconnections between maternal and newborn health-evidence and implications for policy. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2013;26 SUPPL.1:3–53. pmid:23617260
- 106. Benahmed N, Devos C, San Miguel L, Vinck I, Vankelst L, Lauwerier E, et al. CARING FOR MOTHERS AND NEWBORNS AFTER UNCOMPLICATED DELIVERY: TOWARDS INTEGRATED POSTNATAL CARE.
- 107. Bowers J, Cheyne H. Reducing the length of postnatal hospital stay: Implications for cost and quality of care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:1–12.
- 108. Benahmed N, San Miguel L, Devos C, Fairon N, Christiaens W. Vaginal delivery: how does early hospital discharge affect mother and child outcomes? A systematic literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17. pmid:28877667
- 109. Lefèvre M, van den Heede K, Camberlin C, Bouckaert N, Beguin C, Devos C, et al. Impact of shortened length of stay for delivery on the required bed capacity in maternity services: results from forecast analysis on administrative data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:637. pmid:31488147
- 110. Aboubaker S, Qazi S, Wolfheim C, Oyegoke A, Bahl R. Community health workers: A crucial role in newborn health care and survival. J Glob Health. 2014;4. pmid:25520788
- 111. Wilford A, Phakathi S, Haskins L, Jama NA, Mntambo N, Horwood C. Exploring the care provided to mothers and children by community health workers in South Africa: Missed opportunities to provide comprehensive care. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:1–10. pmid:29361926
- 112. Larson E, Sharma J, Nasiri K, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö. Measuring experiences of facility-based care for pregnant women and newborns: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5:e003368. pmid:33219000
- 113. Munos MK, Blanc AK, Carter ED, Eisele TP, Gesuale S, Katz J, et al. Validation studies for population-based intervention coverage indicators: design, analysis, and interpretation. J Glob Health. 2018;8. pmid:30202519
- 114. WHO-MoNITOR. Mother and Newborn Information for Tracking Outcomes and Results online indicator Toolkit. 2022. https://monitor.srhr.org/. Accessed 4 Nov 2022.
- 115. Benova L, Moller AB, Moran AC. “What gets measured better gets done better”: The landscape of validation of global maternal and newborn health indicators through key informant interviews. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0224746. pmid:31689328