Many Cooks in the Kitchen: Iterating a Qualitative Analysis Process Across Multiple Countries, Sites, and Teams.

Establishing and proving methodological rigor has long been a challenge for qualitative researchers where quantitative methods prevail, but much published literature on qualitative analysis assumes a relatively small number of researchers working in relative proximity. This is particularly true for research conducted with a grounded theory approach. Different versions of grounded theory are commonly used, but this methodology was originally developed for a single researcher collecting and analyzing data in isolation. Although grounded theory has evolved since its development, little has been done to reconcile this approach with the changing nature and composition of international research teams. Advances in technology and an increased emphasis on transnational collaboration have facilitated a shift wherein qualitative datasets have been getting larger and the teams collecting and analyzing them more diverse and diffuse. New processes and systems are therefore required to respond to these conditions. Data for this article are drawn from the experiences of the Innovations for Choice and Autonomy (ICAN) Research Consortium. ICAN aims to understand how self-injectable contraceptives can be implemented in ways that best meet women's needs in Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, and Nigeria. We found that taking a structured approach to analysis was important for maintaining consistency and making the process more manageable across countries. However, it was equally important to allow for flexibility within this structured approach so that teams could adapt more easily to local conditions, making data collection and accompanying analysis more feasible. Meaningfully including all interested researchers in the analysis process and providing support for learning also increased rigor. However, competing priorities in a complex study made it difficult to adhere to planned timelines. We conclude with recommendations for both funders and study teams to design and conduct global health studies that ensure more equitable contributions to analysis while remaining logistically feasible and methodologically sound.

Model fidelity of group antenatal and postnatal care: a process analysis of the first implementation of this innovative service model by the Preterm Birth Initiative-Rwanda.

Background: For a large trial of the effect of group antenatal care on perinatal outcomes in Rwanda, a Technical Working Group customized the group care model for implementation in this context. This process analysis aimed to understand the degree of fidelity with which the group antenatal care model was implemented during the trial period. Methods: We used two discreet questionnaires to collect data from two groups about the fidelity with which the group antenatal care model was implemented during this trial period. Group care facilitators recorded descriptive data about each visit and self-assessed process fidelity with a series of yes/no checkboxes. Master Trainers assessed process fidelity with an 11-item tool using a 5-point scale of 0 (worst) to 4 (best). Results: We analyzed 2763 questionnaires completed by group care facilitators that documented discreet group visits among pregnant and postnatal women and 140 questionnaires completed by Master Trainers during supervision visits. Data recorded by both groups was available for 84 group care visits, and we compared these assessments by visit. Approximately 80% of all group visits were provided as intended, with respect to both objective measures (e.g. group size) and process fidelity. We did not find reliable correlations between conceptually-related items scored by Master Trainers and self-assessment data reported by group visit facilitators. Conclusions: We recommend both the continued participation of expert observers at new and existing group care sites and ongoing self-assessment by group care facilitators. Finally, we present two abbreviated assessment tools developed by a Rwanda-specific Technical Working Group that reviewed these research results.

Do you need to pay for quality care? Associations between bribes and out-of-pocket expenditures on quality of care during childbirth in India.

While it is mandated that reproductive and child health services be provided for free at public facilities in India, qualitative evidence suggests it is common for facilities to request bribes and other informal payments for medicines, medical tests or equipment. This article examines the prevalence of bribe requests, total out-of-pocket expenditures (OOPEs) and associations between bribe requests and total OOPEs on the experience of quality of care and maternal complications during childbirth. Women who delivered in public facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India were administered a survey on sociodemographic characteristics, bribe requests, total OOPEs, types of health checks received and experience of maternal complications. Data were analysed using descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistics. Among the 2018 women who completed the survey, 43% were asked to pay a bribe and 73% incurred OOPEs. Bribe requests were associated with lower odds of receiving all health checks upon arrival to the facility (aOR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.24-0.98) and during labour and delivery (aOR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25-0.76), lower odds of receiving most or all health checks after delivery (aOR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.31-0.62) and higher odds of experiencing maternal complications (aOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87). Although it is mandated that maternity care be provided for free in public facilities in India, these findings suggest that OOPEs are high, and bribes/tips contribute significantly. Interventions centred on improving person-centred care (particularly guidelines around bribes), health system conditions and women's expectations of care are needed.

Patient-experience during delivery in public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India.

In India, most women now delivery in hospitals or other facilities, however, maternal and neonatal mortality remains stubbornly high. Studies have shown that mistreatment causes delays in care-seeking, early discharge and poor adherence to post-delivery guidance. This study seeks to understand the variation of women's experiences in different levels of government facilities. This information can help to guide improvement planning. We surveyed 2018 women who gave birth in a representative set of 40 government facilities from across Uttar Pradesh (UP) state in northern India. Women were asked about their experiences of care, using an established scale for person-centred care. We asked questions specific to treatment and clinical care, including whether tests such as blood pressure, contraction timing, newborn heartbeat or vaginal exams were conducted, and whether medical assessments for mothers or newborns were done prior to discharge. Women delivering in hospitals reported less attentive care than women in lower-level facilities, and were less trusting of their providers. After controlling for a range of demographic attributes, we found that better access, higher clinical quality, and lower facility-level, were all significantly predictive of patient-centred care. In UP, lower-level facilities are more accessible, women have greater trust for the providers and women report being better treated than in hospitals. For the vast majority of women who will have a safe and uncomplicated delivery, our findings suggest that the best option would be to invest in improvements mid-level facilities, with access to effective and efficient emergency referral and transportation systems should they be needed.

Evaluating concordance between government administrative data and externally collected data among high-volume government health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Background: Globally, opportunities to validate government reports through external audits are rare, notably in India. A cross-sectional maternal health study in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, compares government administrative data and externally collected data on maternal health service indicators. Objectives: Our study aims to determine the level of concordance between government-reported health facility data compared to externally collected health facility data on the same maternal healthcare quality indicators. Second, our study aims to explore whether the level of agreement between government administrative data versus the externally collected data differs by level of facility or by type of maternal health service. Methods: Facility assessment surveys were administered to key health staff by government-hired enumerators from January 2017 to March 2017 at nearly 750 government health facilities across UP. The same survey was re-conducted by external data collectors from August 2017 to October 2017 at 40 of the same facilities. We conduct comparative analyses of the two datasets for agreement among the same measures of maternal healthcare quality. Results: The findings indicate concordance between most indicators across government administrative data and externally collected health facility data. However, when stratified by facility-level or service type, results suggest significant over-reporting in the government administrative data on indicators that are incentivized. This finding is consistent across all levels of facilities; however, the most significant disparities appear at higher-level facilities, namely District Hospitals. Conclusion: This study has a number of important programmatic and policy implications. Government administrative health data have the potential to be highly critical in informing large-scale quality improvements in maternal healthcare quality, but its credibility must be readily verifiable and accessible to politicians, researchers, funders, and most importantly, the public, to improve the overall health, patient experience, and well-being of women and newborns.

Complicating causality: patient and professional perspectives on obstetric fistula in Nigeria.

Obstetric fistula, a preventable maternal morbidity characterised by chronic bladder and/or bowel incontinence, is widespread in Nigeria. This qualitative, multi-site study examined the competing narratives on obstetric fistula causality in Nigeria. Research methods were participant observation and in-depth interviews with 86 fistula patients and 43 healthcare professionals. The study found that both patient and professional narratives identified limited access to medical facilities as a major factor leading to obstetric fistula. Patients and professionals beliefs regarding the access problem, however, differed significantly. The majority of fistula patients reported either delivering or attempting to deliver in medical facilities and most patients attributed fistula to a lack of trained medical staff and mismanagement at medical facilities. Conversely, a majority of health professionals believed that women developed obstetric fistula because they chose to deliver at home due to women's traditional beliefs about womanhood and childbirth. Both groups described financial constraints and inadequate transport to medical facilities during complicated labour as related to obstetric fistula onset. Programmatic insights derived from these findings should inform fistula prevention interventions both with healthcare professionals and with Nigerian women.