↓ Skip to main content

Uterotonic use immediately following birth: using a novel methodology to estimate population coverage in four countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Uterotonic use immediately following birth: using a novel methodology to estimate population coverage in four countries
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0667-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jim Ricca, Vikas Dwivedi, John Varallo, Gajendra Singh, Suranjeen Prasad Pallipamula, Nazir Amade, Maria de Luz Vaz, Dustan Bishanga, Marya Plotkin, Bushra Al-Makaleh, Stephanie Suhowatsky, Jeffrey Michael Smith

Abstract

BackgroundPostpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developing countries. While incidence of PPH can be dramatically reduced by uterotonic use immediately following birth (UUIFB) in both community and facility settings, national coverage estimates are rare. Most national health systems have no indicator to track this, and community-based measurements are even more scarce. To fill this information gap, a methodology for estimating national coverage for UUIFB was developed and piloted in four settings.MethodsThe rapid estimation methodology consisted of convening a group of national technical experts and using the Delphi method to come to consensus on key data elements that were applied to a simple algorithm, generating a non-precise national estimate of coverage of UUIFB. Data elements needed for the calculation were the distribution of births by location and estimates of UUIFB in each of those settings, adjusted to take account of stockout rates and potency of uterotonics. This exercise was conducted in 2013 in Mozambique, Tanzania, the state of Jharkhand in India, and Yemen.ResultsAvailable data showed that deliveries in public health facilities account for approximately half of births in Mozambique and Tanzania, 16% in Jharkhand and 24% of births in Yemen. Significant proportions of births occur in private facilities in Jharkhand and faith-based facilities in Tanzania. Estimated uterotonic use for facility births ranged from 70 to 100%. Uterotonics are not used routinely for PPH prevention at home births in any of the settings. National UUIFB coverage estimates of all births were 43% in Mozambique, 40% in Tanzania, 44% in Jharkhand, and 14% in Yemen.ConclusionThis methodology for estimating coverage of UUIFB was found to be feasible and acceptable. While the exercise produces imprecise estimates whose validity cannot be assessed objectively in the absence of a gold standard estimate, stakeholders felt they were accurate enough to be actionable. The exercise highlighted information and practice gaps and promoted discussion on ways to improve UUIFB measurement and coverage, particularly of home births. Further follow up is needed to verify actions taken. The methodology produces useful data to help accelerate efforts to reduce maternal mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 22%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Social Sciences 17 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,942,829
of 23,926,844 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,593
of 8,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,367
of 357,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#17
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,926,844 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.