↓ Skip to main content

Quality-of-care audits and perinatal mortality in South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Quality-of-care audits and perinatal mortality in South Africa
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, March 2015
DOI 10.2471/blt.14.144683
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma R Allanson, Robert C Pattinson

Abstract

Suboptimal care contributes to perinatal mortality rates. Quality-of-care audits can be used to identify and change suboptimal care, but it is not known if such audits have reduced perinatal mortality in South Africa. We investigated perinatal mortality trends in health facilities that had completed at least five years of quality-of-care audits. In a subset of facilities that began audits from 2006, we analysed modifiable factors that may have contributed to perinatal deaths. Since the 1990s, the perinatal problem identification programme has performed quality-of-care audits in South Africa to record perinatal deaths, identify modifiable factors and motivate change. Five years of continuous audits were available for 163 facilities. Perinatal mortality rates decreased in 48 facilities (29%) and increased in 52 (32%). Among the subset of facilities that began audits in 2006, there was a decrease in perinatal mortality of 30% (16/54) but an increase in 35% (19/54). Facilities with increasing perinatal mortality were more likely to identify the following contributing factors: patient delay in seeking help when a baby was ill (odds ratio, OR: 4.67; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.99-10.97); lack of use of antenatal steroids (OR: 9.57; 95% CI: 2.97-30.81); lack of nursing personnel (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.34-5.33); fetal distress not detected antepartum when the fetus is monitored (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.47-5.8) and poor progress in labour with incorrect interpretation of the partogram (OR: 2.77; 95% CI: 1.43-5.34). Quality-of-care audits were not shown to improve perinatal mortality in this study.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 30%
Lecturer 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 23%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Psychology 4 4%
Unspecified 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 19 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,323,494
of 8,838,295 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#555
of 1,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,062
of 254,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of the World Health Organization
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,838,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 254,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.