Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Aug 12;36(7):1215-1235.
doi: 10.1093/heapol/czab010.

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

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Daphne N McRae et al. Health Policy Plan. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: community health; health outcomes; infant mortality; international health; maternal health; maternity services; meta-analysis; pregnancy; systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources