Stakeholders' perspectives on the acceptability and feasibility of maternity waiting homes: a qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Maternity waiting homes (MHWs) are recommended to help bridge the geographical gap to accessing maternity services. This study aimed to provide an analysis of stakeholders' perspectives (women, families, communities and health workers) on the acceptability and feasibility of MWHs. METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted. Studies that were published between January 1990 and July 2020, containing qualitative data on the perspectives of the stakeholder groups were included. A combination of inductive and deductive coding and thematic synthesis was used to capture the main perspectives in a thematic framework. RESULTS: Out of 4,532 papers that were found in the initial search, a total of 38 studies were included for the thematic analysis. Six themes emerged: (1) individual factors, such as perceived benefits, awareness and knowledge of the MWH; (2) interpersonal factors and domestic responsibilities, such as household and childcare responsibilities, decision-making processes and social support; (3) MWH characteristics, such as basic services and food provision, state of MWH infrastructure; (4) financial and geographical accessibility, such as transport availability, costs for MWH attendance and loss of income opportunity; (5) perceived quality of care in the MWH and the adjacent health facility, including regular check-ups by health workers and respectful care; and (6) Organization and advocacy, for example funding, community engagement, governmental involvement. The decision-making process of women and their families for using an MWH involves balancing out the gains and losses, associated with all six themes. CONCLUSION: This systematic synthesis of qualitative literature provides in-depth insights of interrelating factors that influence acceptability and feasibility of MWHs according to different stakeholders. The findings highlight the potential of MWHs as important links in the maternal and neonatal health (MNH) care delivery system. The complexity and scope of these determinants of utilization underlines the need for MWH implementation strategy to be guided by context. Better documentation of MWH implementation, is needed to understand which type of MWH is most effective in which setting, and to ensure that those who most need the MWH will use it and receive quality services. These results can be of interest for stakeholders, implementers of health interventions, and governmental parties that are responsible for MNH policy development to implement acceptable and feasible MWHs that provide the greatest benefits for its users. Trial registration Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO 2020, CRD42020192219.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of maternity waiting homes in low- and middle-income countries.

Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) provide women with accommodation close to a health facility to enable timely access to skilled care at birth. We examined whether MWH use and availability compared with non-use/unavailability were associated with facility birth, birth with a skilled health professional, attendance at postnatal visit(s) and/or improved maternal and newborn health, in LMICs. We included (non-)randomized controlled, interrupted time series, controlled before-after, cohort and case-control studies published since 1990. Thirteen databases were searched with no language restrictions. Included studies (1991-2020) were assessed as either moderate (n = 9) or weak (n = 10) on individual quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Quality was most frequently compromised by selection bias, confounding and blinding. Only moderate quality studies were analyzed; no studies examining maternal morbidity/mortality met this criterion. MWH users had less relative risk (RR) of perinatal mortality [RR 0.65, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.48, 0.87] (3 studies) and low birthweight (RR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.59) (2 studies) compared with non-users. There were no significant differences between MWH use and non-use for stillbirth (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.18) (3 studies) or neonatal mortality (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.02) (2 studies). Single study results demonstrated higher adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for facility birth (aOR 5.8, 95% CI: 2.6, 13.0) and attendance at all recommended postnatal visits within 6 weeks of birth (aOR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.30, 3.07) for MWH users vs. non-users. The presence vs. absence of an MWH was associated with a 19% increase in facility birth (aOR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.29). The presence vs. absence of a hospital-affiliated MWH predicted a 47% lower perinatal mortality rate (P < 0.01), but at a healthcare centre-level a 13 higher perinatal mortality rate (P < 0.01). Currently, there remains a lack of robust evidence supporting MWH effectiveness. We outline a six-point strategy for strengthening the evidence base.