4.5 Review

Role of Maternal and Child Health Handbook on Improving Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children10030435

关键词

public health; maternal and child health; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this review is to assess the impact of the MCH handbook on healthcare service utilization, behavior change, and health outcomes for women and children. The findings suggest that the use of the MCH handbook can increase the number of antenatal care visits and the proportion of skilled birth attendants during delivery.
The objective of this review is to assess and synthesize the role of the maternal and child health (MCH) handbook on improving healthcare service utilization, behavior change, and health outcomes for women and children. A systematic search of all relevant existing reports was conducted on 14 January 2021, using the following online bibliographic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Academic Search Premier, Emcare, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. We included 7 trials from 1430 articles, and a total of 2643 women. As overall risk of bias assessment, most domains of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool showed a high or unclear risk of bias. The risk of >= 6 antenatal care (ANC) visits was 19% higher (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30, I2 = 47%, 2 studies, 955 women, moderate certainty of evidence) and skilled birth attendants during delivery was 13% higher (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24, I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 1094 women, low certainty of the evidence) in the intervention group than in the control group. The MCH handbook can increase maternal health service utilization and early breastfeeding practice. It also leads to a sense of autonomy during ANC, better communication with healthcare providers, and support from family members.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据