The Cochrane database of systematic reviews

How People Understand and Handle the Prevention, Detection, and Treatment of Heavy Bleeding After Childbirth

Updated

Abstract

67 studies were included in the analysis, with most originating from low- or middle-income countries and focusing on the perspectives of women and health workers.

  • Bleeding during and after childbirth is often viewed as 'normal' in many communities, with a belief that it helps cleanse the body post-pregnancy.
  • Some communities hold misconceptions about postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) being caused by supernatural forces or punishing women for social transgressions.
  • Female family members or traditional birth attendants typically recognize excessive bleeding after birth for women giving birth at home or in the community.
  • Decision-making regarding care for suspected PPH is influenced by family members and traditional birth attendants, complicating referral processes.
  • First responders to PPH are frequently not skilled healthcare providers, leading to potential delays in care.
  • In health facilities, midwives find visual estimation of blood loss straightforward, but struggle with accurately interpreting it, highlighting challenges in changing practice.

Simplified

Full Text

We can’t show the full text here under this license.

Funding

Competing interests

SA has no conflicts of interest. GF has no conflicts of interest. MVC has no conflicts of interest. SM was a co‐author on two studies included in this qualitative evidence synthesis (Jordan 2016; Berdichevsky 2010), but was not involved in the critical appraisal of these studies or GRADE‐CERQual assessments of review findings where these studies contributed evidence. FA has no conflicts of interest. AC is the Chief Investigator for "Early detection of Postpartum Haemorrhage and treatment using the WHO MOTIVE 'first response' bundle: a cluster randomised trial with health economic analysis and mixed methods evaluation" (E‐MOTIVE trial). This work is supported by a research grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [Grant Number: INV‐001393]. IG was involved in conducting a study eligible for inclusion in this review. OTO has no conflicts of interest. JPV has an editorial role with Cochrane but was not involved in the editorial process for this review. JPV has worked as a health professional. FL has no conflicts of interest. MAB has an editorial role with Cochrane but was not involved in the editorial process of this review. MAB was involved in conducting a study eligible for inclusion in this review.
PubMed

What Lands in Your Inbox Each Week:

  • 📚7 fresh studies
  • 📝plain-language summaries
  • direct links to original studies
  • 🏅top journal indicators
  • 📅weekly delivery
  • 🧘‍♂️always free