Baqui 2008 (b).
| Methods | Quasi‐experimental study with 1 intervention district and 1 comparison (control) district of rural Uttar Pradesh, India | |
| Participants | Each district had 15 rural blocks; 9 of these made up the intervention group and 8 made up the comparison district. One sector from each block was selected for baseline and end of line surveys. Women who had experienced a live birth in the reference period were included in the analysis. At baseline, a total of 6196 women were included in the comparison group compared to 8756 in the intervention group. For the end line survey, 6014 women were included in the comparison and 7812 in the intervention district Community‐based workers: home visitation during neonatal and postnatal periods |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: community‐based workers (CBWs) conducted home visits during antenatal and postnatal periods as the main strategy for behaviour change communication about healthy maternal and newborn care practices, including recognition of danger signs and care‐seeking. CBWs also promoted recognition of maternal and newborn complications during pregnancy, during delivery, or postpartum Control: received the standard government programme Baseline and end line surveys were conducted to determine effects of the intervention regarding rates of programme coverage, maternal and newborn care practices, and healthcare utilisation |
|
| Outcomes | Antenatal care: antenatal home visit, birth preparation, emergency preparation, tetanus toxoid immunisation, iron/folic acid supplementation, antenatal care visit Delivery care: medically trained birth attendant Newborn care: clean cord care, newborn dried and wrapped, newborn bath delayed, immediate breastfeeding, postnatal home visit, newborn check‐up |
|
| Notes | Funding: project was funded by USAID, India Mission, through Global Research Activity Award # HRNA‐00‐96‐90006‐00 to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "each district had 15 rural blocks; 9 blocks in the intervention district and 8 in the comparison district were randomly selected using a computer program. WIthin each block, one sector,..., was randomly selected" Comment: probably done. However the intervention group had a significantly larger sample size (8756) compared to the control group (6196) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: since this is a cluster‐randomised trial, allocation concealment should not be an issue, as in this design, all clusters are randomised at once |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Other bias | Low risk | Study seems to be free from other biases |