↓ Skip to main content

A process evaluation plan for assessing a complex community-based maternal health intervention in Ogun State, Nigeria

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
304 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A process evaluation plan for assessing a complex community-based maternal health intervention in Ogun State, Nigeria
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2124-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sumedha Sharma, Olalekan O. Adetoro, Marianne Vidler, Sharla Drebit, Beth A. Payne, David O. Akeju, Akinmade Adepoju, Ebunoluwa Jaiyesimi, John Sotunsa, Zulfiqar A. Bhutta, Laura A. Magee, Peter von Dadelszen, Olukayode Dada

Abstract

Despite increased investment in community-level maternal health interventions, process evaluations of such interventions are uncommon, and can be instrumental in understanding mediating factors leading to outcomes. In Nigeria, where an unacceptably number of maternal deaths occur (maternal mortality ratio of 814/100,000 livebirths), the Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) study (NCT01911494) aimed to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity with a complex intervention of five interrelated components. Building from previous frameworks, we illustrate a methodology to evaluate implementation processes of the complex CLIP intervention, assess mechanisms of impact and identify emerging unintended causal pathways. The study was conducted from 2013-2016 in five Local Government Areas in Ogun State, Nigeria. A six-step approach was developed to evaluate key constructs of context (external factors related to intervention), implementation (fidelity, dose, reach, and adaption) and mechanisms of impact (unintended outcomes and mediating pathways). The steps are: 1) describing the intervention by a logic model, 2) defining acceptable delivery, 3) formulating questions, 4) determining methodology, 5) planning resources in context, lastly, step 6) finalising the plan in consideration with relevant stakeholders. Quantitative data were collected from 32,785 antenatal and postnatal visits at the primary health care level, from 66 community engagement sessions, training assessments of community health workers, and standard health facility questionnaires. Forty-three focus group discussions, 38 in-depth interviews, and 23 structured observations were conducted to capture qualitative data. A total of 103 community engagement reports and 182 suspected pre-eclampsia case reports were purposively collected. Timing of data collection was staggered to understand feedback mechanisms that may have resulted from the delivery of the intervention. Data will be analysed using R and NVivo. Diffusions of innovations and realist evaluation theories will underpin analysis of the interaction between context, mechanisms and outcomes. This comprehensive approach can serve as a guide for researchers and policy makers to plan the evaluation of similar complex health interventions in resource-constrained settings, and to aid in measuring 'effectiveness' of interventions and not just 'efficacy'. This research is a part of the Community Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia Study, NCT01911494. The trial is registered in Clinicaltrials.gov, the URL is https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01911494 The trial was registered on June 28, 2013 and the first participant was enrolled for intervention on March 1, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 304 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 12%
Researcher 36 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 5%
Student > Postgraduate 15 5%
Other 42 14%
Unknown 96 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 15%
Social Sciences 36 12%
Psychology 11 4%
Arts and Humanities 8 3%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 110 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,454,502
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,612
of 7,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,759
of 308,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#104
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 308,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.