Use of an electronic Partograph: feasibility and acceptability study in Zanzibar, Tanzania

Lindsay Elizabeth Litwin, Christina Maly, Asma Ramadan Khamis, Cyndi Hiner, Jérémie Zoungrana, Khadija Mohamed, Mary Drake, Michael Machaku, Mustafa Njozi, Salhiya Ali Muhsin, Yusuph K Kulindwa, Patricia P Gomez, Lindsay Elizabeth Litwin, Christina Maly, Asma Ramadan Khamis, Cyndi Hiner, Jérémie Zoungrana, Khadija Mohamed, Mary Drake, Michael Machaku, Mustafa Njozi, Salhiya Ali Muhsin, Yusuph K Kulindwa, Patricia P Gomez

Abstract

Background: The ePartogram is a tablet-based application developed to improve care for women in labor by addressing documented challenges in partograph use. The application is designed to provide real-time decision support, improve data entry, and increase access to information for appropriate labor management. This study's primary objective was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of ePartogram use in resource-constrained clinical settings.

Methods: The ePartogram was introduced at three facilities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Following 3 days of training, skilled birth attendants (SBAs) were observed for 2 weeks using the ePartogram to monitor laboring women. During each observed shift, data collectors used a structured observation form to document SBA comfort, confidence, and ability to use the ePartogram. Results were analyzed by shift. Short interviews, conducted with SBAs (n = 82) after each of their first five ePartogram-monitored labors, detected differences over time. After the observation period, in-depth interviews were conducted (n = 15). A thematic analysis of interview transcripts was completed.

Results: Observations of 23 SBAs using the ePartogram to monitor 103 women over 84 shifts showed that the majority of SBAs (87-91%) completed each of four fundamental ePartogram tasks-registering a client, entering first and subsequent measurements, and navigating between screens-with ease or increasing ease on their first shift; this increased to 100% by the fifth shift. Nearly all SBAs (93%) demonstrated confidence and all SBAs demonstrated comfort in using the ePartogram by the fifth shift. SBAs expressed positive impressions of the ePartogram and found it efficient and easy to use, beginning with first client use. SBAs noted the helpfulness of auditory reminders (indicating that measurements were due) and visual alerts (signaling abnormal measurements). SBAs expressed confidence in their ability to interpret and act on these reminders and alerts.

Conclusions: It is feasible and acceptable for SBAs to use the ePartogram to support labor management and care. With structured training and support during initial use, SBAs quickly became competent and confident in ePartogram use. Qualitative findings revealed that SBAs felt the ePartogram improved timeliness of care and supported decision-making. These findings point to the ePartogram's potential to improve quality of care in resource-constrained labor and delivery settings.

Keywords: Clinical decision support; Labor and delivery; Maternal and newborn health; Mobile data collection; Partogram; Partograph; Quality of care; Real-time monitoring; Zanzibar.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

LL, MSPH, Program Officer II, Innovations, Jhpiego; CM, MPH, Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor, Jhpiego; AK, Zonal Program Manager - Zanzibar, Jhpiego Tanzania; CH, MHS, Senior Program Officer, Jhpiego; JZ, MS, Country Director, Jhpiego, Tanzania; KM, Zonal Public Health Nursing Officer, Ministry of Health Zanzibar, RN, RM, BsCN, MPH; MD, BSN, RN, MPH, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Director, Jhpiego, Tanzania; MM, PDME, MSc, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, Jhpiego, Tanzania; MN, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Analyst, Jhpiego, Tanzania; SM, Director, Hospital Services, Ministry of Health, Zanzibar; YK, MSc, Senior Health Informatics Advisor, Jhpiego, Tanzania; PG, CNM, MPH, Senior Maternal and Newborn Health Technical Advisor, Jhpiego.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol, study tools, and informed consent forms were approved by the MOH Zanzibar Medical Research and Ethics Committee (IRB00004514) and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB00000758). Skilled birth attendants (SBAs) provided written informed consent and laboring clients provided oral informed consent to participate in the study. The study team determined that reading a consent form would be unduly burdensome for the laboring woman so oral consent was obtained from women in labor, as has been done in similar IRB approved studies. The oral informed consent script and process were approved by the Zanzibar Medical Research and Ethics Committee and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health IRB. SBAs who obtained oral consent from laboring women were trained on how to obtain informed oral consent within the context of labor and delivery.

Consent for publication

The study protocol, which included details of data management to maintain confidentiality and anonymity of in-depth interviews, and informed consent forms were approved by both a US-based and the Zanzibar-based ethics committees. Quotes from in-depth interviews with SBAs were taken from anonymized, transcribed and translated audio files of the interviews. Names of skilled birth attendants (SBAs) were not asked during recording, included in digital files, nor written in the interview notes. The study team has reviewed the quotes several times to ensure that an individual participant’s identity could not be derived from the quotes, or from the context of the manuscript along with the quotes. Given these steps to protect study participants anonymity we rely on the IRB approved written informed consent forms obtained from SBAs to include these quotes.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
ePartogram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Facility profiles: 1Mwembeladu Maternity Home: urban, 550 births/month, 12 SBAs enrolled in study. 2Chukwani Primary Health Care Unit (PHCU): urban, 105 births/month, 7 SBAs enrolled in study. 3Makunduchi Health Centre: rural, 136 births/month, 12 SBAs enrolled in study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
ePartogram ease of use by shift. Observed ease of use in completing tasks on the ePartogram: (a) registering a new client; (b) entering the first set of clinical measurements; (c) entering subsequent data; (d) navigating between data entry screens
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Observed SBA comfort and confidence in using the ePartogram
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
SBAs taking a measurement after a reminder

References

    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Haws RA, Bergström S, Lee AC, Okong P, Darmstadt GL, et al. Obstetric care in low-resource settings: what, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107(Suppl1):S21–S45. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.017.
    1. Lawn JE, Kinney M, Lee AC, Chopra M, Donnay F, Paul VK, et al. Reducing intrapartum-related deaths and disability: can the health system deliver? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107(Suppl 1):S123–S142. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.021.
    1. Lawn JE, Lee AC, Kinney M, Sibley L, Carlo WA, Paul VK, et al. Two million intrapartum-related stillbirths and neonatal deaths: where, why, and what can be done? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107(Suppl1):S5–S19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.016.
    1. Lavendar T, Hart A, Smyth RM. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:1–22.
    1. Kwast BE, Lennox CE, Farley TMM. World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization maternal health and safe motherhood Programme. Lancet. 1994;343:1399–1404.
    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
    1. Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program (MCHIP) ICM congress 2014 partograph side meeting. Prague; 5 June 2014. Washington, DC: MCHIP; 2014.
    1. Windrim R, Seaward PG, Hodnett E, Akoury H, Kingdom J, Salenieks ME, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a bedside partogram in the active management of primiparous labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(1):27–34. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32367-2.
    1. Kagema F, Ricca J, Rawlins B, Rosen H, Mukhwana W, Lynam P, et al. Quality of care for prevention and management of common maternal and newborn complications: findings from a national health facility survey in Kenya. Washington, DC: MCHIP; 2011.
    1. Souza JP, Oladapo OT, Bohren MA, Mugerwa K, Fawole B, Moscovici L, et al. The development of a simplified, effective, labour monitoring-to-action (SELMA) tool for better outcomes in labour difficulty (BOLD): study protocol. Reprod Health. 2015;12:49. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0029-4.
    1. Mathibe-Neke JM, Lebeko FL, Motupa B. The partograph: a labour management tool or a midwifery record? Int J Nurs Midwifery. 2013;5(8):145–153. doi: 10.5897/IJNM2013.0115.
    1. Ollerhead E, Osrin D. Barriers to and incentives for achieving partograph use in obstetric practice in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:281. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-281.
    1. Mathai M. The partograph for the prevention of obstructed labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52(2):256–269. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a4f163.
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) Integrated management of pregnancy and childbirth. Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth: a guide for midwives and doctors. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
    1. Schweers J, Khalid M, Underwood H. mLabor: design and evaluation of a mobile partograph and labor ward management application. Procedia Eng. 2016;159:35–43. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.061.
    1. Merck for mothers website. Transformation through digital innovations.. Accessed 4 Jan 2017.
    1. Balikuddembe MS, Tumwesigye NM, Wakholi PK. Computerized childbirth monitoring tools for health care providers managing labor: a scoping review. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2017;5(2):e14. doi: 10.2196/medinform.6959.
    1. Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children (MOHCDGEC), [Tanzania Mainland], Ministry of Health (MOH) [Zanzibar], National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Office of the Chief Government Statistician (OCGS), and ICF International . Tanzania demographic and health survey and malaria indicator survey (TDHS-MIS) 2015–16. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: MOHSW, MOH, NBS, OCGS, and ICF International; 2016.
    1. National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance, and Office of Chief Government Statistician, Ministry of State. Mortality and health. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministries of Finance and State; 2015. . Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
    1. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) [Tanzania] and ICF Macro. Tanzania demographic and health survey 2010. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: NBS and ICF Macro; 2011. . Accessed 6 Jan 2017.
    1. United Nations. Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. . Accessed 4 Jan 2017.
    1. Plotkin M, Makene CL, Khamis AR, Currie S, Tibaijuka G, Lacoste M, et al. Quality of maternal and newborn health services in Zanzibar, 2010. Findings from selected health facilities in Unguja and Pemba. Baltimore: Jhpiego. p. 2012.
    1. Pew Research Center . Cell phones in Africa: communication lifeline. Texting most common activity, but mobile money popular in several countries. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2015.
    1. Labrique AB, Vasudevan L, Kochi E, Fabricant R, Mehl G. mHealth innovations as health system strengthening tools: 12 common applications and a visual framework. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(2):160–171. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-13-00031.
    1. Lund S, Boas IM, Bedesa T, Fekede W, Nielsen HS, Sorensen BL. Association between the safe delivery app and quality of care and perinatal survival in Ethiopia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(8):765–771. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0687.
    1. BCS . The infomational dividend: why IT makes you ‘happier’. 2010.
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies. Geneva: WHO; 2011.
    1. Gagnon MP, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. M-health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):212–220. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv052.
    1. Baig MM, GholamHosseini H, Connolly MJ. Mobile healthcare applications: system design review, critical issues and challenges. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015;38(1):23–38. doi: 10.1007/s13246-014-0315-4.
    1. Sondaal SF, Browne JL, Amoakoh-Coleman M, Borgstein A, Miltenburg AS, Verwijs M, et al. Assessing the effect of mHealth interventions in improving maternal and neonatal care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154664.
    1. Bluestone J, Johnson P, Fullerton J, Carr C, Alderman J, BonTempo J. Effective in-service training design and delivery: evidence from an integrative literature review. Human Resour Health. 2013;11:51. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-51.
    1. Torres B. 3 factors that affect clinician buy-in. Reflexion Health. 2015; . Accessed 3 Dec 2016
    1. Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag. 2003;40:191–204. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.
    1. Vélez O, Okyere PB, Kanter AS, Bakken S. A usability study of a mobile health application for rural Ghanaian midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;59(2):184–191. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12071.
    1. Campbell JI, Aturinda I, Mwesigwa E, Burns B, Santorino D, Haberer JE, et al. The technology acceptance model for resource-limited settings (TAM-RLS): a novel framework for mobile health interventions targeted to low-literacy end-users in resource-limited settings. AIDS and Behav. 2017;21(11):3129–3140. doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1765-y.
    1. Tunçalp Ö, Were WM, MacLennan C, Oladapo OT, Gülmezoglu AM, Bahl R, et al. Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns—the WHO vision. BJOG. 2015;122(8):1045–1049. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13451.
    1. Koblinski M, Moyer CA, Calvert C, Campbell J, Campbell OM, Feigl AB, et al. Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action. Lancet. 2016;388(10057):2307–2320. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31333-2.
    1. Oladapo OT, Souza JP, Bohren MA, Tunçalp Ö, Vogel JP, Fawole B, et al. WHO better outcomes in labour difficulty (BOLD) project: innovating to improve quality of care around the time of childbirth. Reprod Health. 2015;12:48. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0027-6.
    1. Mitchell M, Getchell M, Nkaka M, Msellemu D, Van Esch J, Hedt-Gauthier B. Perceived improvement in integrated management of childhood illness implementation through use of mobile technology: qualitative evience from a pilot study in Tanzania. J Health Commun. 2012;17(Suppl 1):118–127. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.649105.
    1. Jones CO, Wasunna B, Sudoi R, Githinji S, Snow RW, Zurovac D. “Even if you know everything you can forget”: health worker perceptions of mobile phone text-messaging to improve malaria case-management in Kenya. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038636.
    1. Rathert C, Mittler JN, Banerjee S, McDaniel J. Patient-centered communication in the era of electronic health records: what does the evidence say? Patient Educ Couns. 2016; 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.031. [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Alkureishi MA, Lee WW, Lyons M, Press VG, Imam S, Nkansah-Amankra A, et al. Impact of electronic medical record use on the patient-doctor relationship and communication: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(5):548–560. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3582-1.
    1. Tomlinson M, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Swartz L, Tsai AC. Scaling up mHealth: where is the evidence? PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001382.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren