The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Postoperative outcome of caesarean sections and other major emergency obstetric surgery by clinical officers and medical officers in Malawi
Open accessAbstract
Background: Clinical officers perform much of major emergency surgery in Malawi, in the absence of medical officers. The aim of this study was to validate the advantages and disadvantages of delegation of major obstetric surgery to non-doctors. Methods: During a three month period, data from 2131 consecutive obstetric surgeries in 38 district hospitals in Malawi were collected prospectively. The interventions included caesarean sections alone and those that were combined with other interventions such as subtotal and total hysterectomy repair of uterine rupture and tubal ligation. All these surgeries were conducted either by clinical officers or by medical officers. Results: During the study period, clinical officers performed 90% of all straight caesarean sections, 70% of those combined with subtotal hysterectomy, 60% of those combined with total hysterectomy and 89% of those combined with repair of uterine rupture. A comparable profile of patients was operated on by clinical officers and medical officers, respectively. Postoperative outcomes were almost identical in the two groups in terms of maternal general condition – both immediately and 24 hours postoperatively – and regarding occurrence of pyrexia, wound infection, wound dehiscence, need for re-operation, neonatal outcome or maternal death. Conclusion: Clinical officers perform the bulk of emergency obstetric operations at district hospitals in Malawi. The postoperative outcomes of their procedures are comparable to those of medical officers. Clinical officers constitute a crucial component of the health care team in Malawi for saving maternal and neonatal lives given the scarcity of physicians.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development
Meara, J. G., Leather, A. J. M., Hagander, L., Alkire, B. C., Alonso, N., Ameh, E. A., Bickler, S. W., Conteh, L., Dare, A. J., Davies, J., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60160-x · Cited by 3,851
Ng, B., Chu, A., & Khan, M. M. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002468 · Cited by 301
Task shifting: the answer to the human resources crisis in Africa?
Lehmann, U., Van Damme, W., Barten, F., & Sanders, D. (2009) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/1478-4491-7-49 · Cited by 272
Obstetric care in low-resource settings: what, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up?
Hofmeyr, G. J., Haws, R. A., Bergström, S., Lee, A. C., Okong, P., Darmstadt, G. L., Mullany, L. C., Oo, E. K. S., & Lawn, J. E. (2009) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.017 · Cited by 224
Self-citationAshengo, T., Skeels, A., Hurwitz, E. J. H., Thuo, E., & Sanghvi, H. (2017) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-017-0248-6 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Chilopora, G., Pereira, C., Kamwendo, F., Chimbiri, A., Malunga, E., & Bergström, S.
- Venue
- Human Resources for Health
- Published
- 2007-06-14
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-17
- ISSN
- 1478-4491 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2113530434
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Postoperative outcome of caesarean sections and other major emergency obstetric surgery by clinical officers and medical officers in Malawi. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1478-4491-5-17
- The paper
- Chilopora, G., Pereira, C., Kamwendo, F., Chimbiri, A., Malunga, E., & Bergström, S. (2007). Postoperative outcome of caesarean sections and other major emergency obstetric surgery by clinical officers and medical officers in Malawi. Human Resources for Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-5-17
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.