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
. 2023 Jul 5;20(1):101.
doi: 10.1186/s12978-023-01615-x.

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

Affiliations

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

Eva Julia van Braam et al. Reprod Health. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Care-seeking; Maternal and newborn health services; Maternity waiting homes; Safe motherhood.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart for study eligibility screening
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Thematic framework of the women’s, families’, communities’ and health workers’ perspectives on the acceptability and feasibility of MWHs
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Conceptual model of determinants of MWH use. Yellow boxes: stakeholders; blue boxes: health facilities; green boxes: determinants of acceptability and feasibility of MWHs

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 Overview. 2015.
    1. World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNFPA WBG and the UNPD. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates [Internet]. Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2019. 12 p. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal-mortality-2....
    1. Lassi ZS, Mallick D, Das JK, Mal L, Salam RA, Bhutta ZA. Essential interventions for child health. Reprod Health. 2014;11(Suppl 1):S4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
    1. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Heal. 2014;2(6):323–333. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources