Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Barriers to and strategies for addressing the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of the sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn and adolescent health workforce: addressing the post-2015 agenda

Homer, Caroline S. E., Castro Lopes, Sofia, Nove, Andrea, Michel-Schuldt, Michaela, McConville, Frances, Moyo, Nester T., Bokosi, Martha, ten Hoope-Bender, Petra·2018·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1686-4PMC PMC5819639
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12884-018-1686-4

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Independent Expert Review Group (iERG), Every Woman, Every Child: from commitments to action: the first report of the independent Expert review group (iERG) on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children's Health. 2012, Geneva: Independent Expert Review Group (iERG) on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children's Health.
  2. Independent Expert Review Group (iERG), Every Woman, Every Child: Strengthening Equity and Dignity through Health: the second report of the independent Expert Review Group (iERG) on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children's Health. 2013, Geneva: Independent Expert Review Group (iERG) on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children's Health.
  3. Victora C, et al. Countdown to 2015: a decade of tracking progress for maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet. 2016;387:2049–59. · DOI
  4. Tanahashi T. Health service coverage and its evaluation. Bull World Health Organ. 1978;56(2):295–303.
  5. Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Saldana J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2013.
  7. Srivastava A, et al. Determinants of women’s satisfaction with maternal health care: a review of literature from developing countries. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth. 2015;15(1):1–12. · DOI
  8. Fogliati P, et al. How can childbirth Care for the Rural Poor be Improved? A contribution from spatial modelling in rural Tanzania. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0139460. · DOI
  9. Tracy S, et al. Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2014;14:46. · DOI
  10. Devane D, et al. Socioeconomic value of the midwife: a systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis and economic analysis of midwife-led models of care. London: Royal College of Midwives; 2010.
  11. Stewart, M., et al., Review of evidence about clinical, psychosocial and economic outcomes for women with straightforward pregnancies who plan to give birth in a midwife-led birth centre, and outcomes for their babies: Report of a structured review of birth centre outcomes (December 2004 – Revised July 2005). 2005, Oxford National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford.
  12. ten Hoope-Bender P. Continuity of maternity carer for all women. Lancet. 2013;382(9906):1685–7. · DOI
  13. Kruske S, Kildea S, Barclay L. Cultural safety and maternity care for aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Australians. Women and Birth. 2006;19(3):73. · DOI
  14. Brodie P. Midwifing the midwives: addressing the empowerment, safety of, and respect for, the world’s midwives. Midwifery. 2013;29(10):1075–6. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Sullivan K, Lock L, Homer C. Factors that contribute to midwives staying in midwifery: a study in one area health Service in new South Wales, Australia. Midwifery. 2011;27:331–5. · DOI
  16. Sandall J. Choice, continuity and control: changing midwifery, towards a sociological perspective. Midwifery. 1995;11(4):201–9. · DOI
  17. Cadée F, et al. ‘Twin2twin’ an innovative method of empowering midwives to strengthen their professional midwifery organisations. Midwifery. 2013;29(10):1145–50. · DOI
  18. Kruk M, et al. Bypassing primary clinics for childbirth in rural Tanzania: a census of 3,019 deliveries. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92 · DOI
  19. Conway S, Surka S, Campbell J. A connected health workforce: an innovation brief. Barcelona: ICS Integrare; 2014.
  20. ten Hoope-Bender P, et al. Midwifery 2030: a woman’s pathway to health. What does this mean? Midwifery. 2016;32:1–6. · DOI

Cited by

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Homer, C. S. E., Castro Lopes, S., Nove, A., Michel-Schuldt, M., McConville, F., Moyo, N. T., Bokosi, M., & ten Hoope-Bender, P.
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-02-20
Volume
18
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-2393
DOI
10.1186/s12884-018-1686-4
PMC
PMC5819639
Cited by
56
References
9
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1094652)

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

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.