» Articles » PMID: 35087708

Maternity Waiting Home Interventions As a Strategy for Improving Birth Outcomes: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview
Journal Ann Glob Health
Publisher Ubiquity Press
Date 2022 Jan 28
PMID 35087708
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objective: Over 300 000 women worldwide die due to pregnancy-related complications annually, with most occurring in developing countries where access to skilled obstetric care is limited. Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) are one intervention designed to increase access to skilled prenatal care in resource-limited settings. MWHs are defined as accommodations at or near a health facility where pregnant women can stay in the final weeks of their pregnancy so they can be easily transferred to the health facility to give birth. While MWHs have existed for decades, evidence regarding their effectiveness in reducing adverse birth outcomes has been mixed. The objective of this study is to comprehensively assess all available MWH research reporting quantitative maternal and childbirth data to determine whether MWHs are an effective maternal health strategy in resource-limited settings.

Methodology: We conducted a scoping review and meta-analysis of existing literature on MWHs according to PRISMA guidelines. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios were calculated for the following birth outcomes: maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, and caesarian section. Quantitative analysis was conducted in RStudio and Stata Version 16.

Results: One hundred seventy-one records were retrieved from our initial database search, of which 66 were identified as relevant. Only 15 of these records reported quantitative data on the health outcomes of interest and therefore met inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis. All studies reporting maternal mortality demonstrated a protective effect of MWHs (aggregate OR: 0.19 [0.10, 0.40]), as did all studies reporting perinatal mortality (aggregate OR: 0.29 [0.16, 0.53]). Studies reporting caesarian section were more varied and indicated less of a protective effect (aggregate OR: 1.80 [1.18, 2.75]).

Conclusions: There is some indication that MWHs are an effective strategy for reducing maternal and perinatal mortality in resource-limited settings. However, our analysis was constrained by the observational design of most prior MWH studies. More rigorous MWH evaluations, ideally in the form of randomized-control trials, are needed to better determine MWH effectiveness.

Citing Articles

Influence of Maternal Waiting Homes in Pregnancy-Related Complications: A Case-Control Study in Sipepa Ward 5, Tsholotsho District Zimbabwe.

Ncube S, Mpofu M, Moyo P Health Serv Insights. 2025; 18:11786329251321643.

PMID: 39959141 PMC: 11830164. DOI: 10.1177/11786329251321643.


Perspectives of pregnant women on the utilisation of a maternity waiting home near Onandjokwe Lutheran Hospital in Oshikoto Region, Namibia.

Ashipala D, Joel M, Pretorius L S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2024; 66(1):e1-e9.

PMID: 38832389 PMC: 11151339. DOI: 10.4102/safp.v66i1.5943.


Realist evaluation of maternity waiting home intervention models in Inhambane, Mozambique: protocol for a comparative embedded case study, the Mozambique-Canada Maternal Health Project.

Uwamahoro N, Forsyth J, Andre F, Mandlate D, Gilmore B, Muhajarine N BMJ Open. 2024; 14(3):e075681.

PMID: 38521527 PMC: 10961506. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075681.


A realist review of interventions targeting maternal health in low- and middle-income countries.

Abraham J, Melendez-Torres G Womens Health (Lond). 2023; 19:17455057231205687.

PMID: 37899651 PMC: 10617292. DOI: 10.1177/17455057231205687.


Provider and client perspectives on the use of maternity waiting homes in rural Rwanda.

Tayebwa E, Gatimu S, Kalisa R, Kim Y, van Dillen J, Stekelenburg J Glob Health Action. 2023; 16(1):2210881.

PMID: 37190999 PMC: 10190178. DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2023.2210881.


References
1.
Bonawitz R, McGlasson K, Kaiser J, Ngoma T, Fong R, Biemba G . Quality and utilization patterns of maternity waiting homes at referral facilities in rural Zambia: A mixed-methods multiple case analysis of intervention and standard of care sites. PLoS One. 2019; 14(11):e0225523. PMC: 6881034. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225523. View

2.
Perosky J, McLean K, Kofa A, Nyanplu A, Munro-Kramer M, Lori J . Utilization of maternity waiting homes: before, during, and after the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Bong County, Liberia. Int Health. 2019; 12(1):69-71. PMC: 6964226. DOI: 10.1093/inthealth/ihz039. View

3.
Tumwine J, Dungare P . Maternity waiting shelters and pregnancy outcome: experience from a rural area in Zimbabwe. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1996; 16(1):55-9. DOI: 10.1080/02724936.1996.11747804. View

4.
Danilack V, Nunes A, Phipps M . Unexpected complications of low-risk pregnancies in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212(6):809.e1-6. PMC: 4728153. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.038. View

5.
Lori J, Boyd C, Munro-Kramer M, Veliz P, Henry E, Kaiser J . Characteristics of maternity waiting homes and the women who use them: Findings from a baseline cross-sectional household survey among SMGL-supported districts in Zambia. PLoS One. 2019; 13(12):e0209815. PMC: 6312364. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209815. View