Skip to main content

Male partner involvement in birth preparedness, complication readiness and obstetric emergencies in Sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review

Abstract

Background

Maternal mortality remains a pressing concern across Sub-Sahara Africa. The ‘Three Delays Model’ suggests that maternal deaths are a consequence of delays in: seeking care, reaching medical care and receiving care. Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) refers to a plan organised during pregnancy in preparation for a normal birth and in case of complications. Male partners in many Sub-Saharan African communities could play a pivotal role in a woman’s ability to prepare for birth and respond to obstetric complications. This review aimed identify: the extent and quality of research performed on the topic of male partner involvement in BPCR in Sub-Saharan Africa; the degree to which populations and geographic areas are represented; how male partner involvement has been conceptualized; how male partners response to obstetric complications has been conceptualised; how the variation in male partners involvement has been measured and if any interventions have been performed.

Methods

In this scoping review, articles were identified through a systematic search of databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care and a manual scan of relevant papers, journals and websites. All authors contributed to the screening process and a quality assessment using the Kmet checklist. The PRISMA checking list for Scoping Reviews was used to guide the search, data charting and reporting of the review The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019126263).

Results

Thirty-five articles met inclusion criteria, reporting: 13 qualitative, 13 cross-sectional, 5 mixed method and 4 intervention studies. Data were contributed by approximately 14,550 participants (numbers were not always reported for focus groups) including: women who were pregnant or who had experienced pregnancy or childbirth within the previous 3 years, their male partners and key informants such as health workers and community leaders.

Conclusions

The diversity of study designs, aims and source countries in this body of literature reflects an emerging stage of research; as a result, the review yielded strong evidence in some areas and gaps in others. Male partner’s involvement in BPCR and responding to obstetric emergencies can be conceptualised as being centrally involved in responding to complications and having some role in preparing for birth through their position in the chain of decisions and provision of logistic support. However, their knowledge of pregnancy complications and level of preparation for birth is low, suggesting they are making decisions without being fully informed. There is limited evidence on interventions to improve their knowledge. Future research efforts should be focused on producing standardised, culturally appropriate, higher level evidence.

Peer Review reports

Background

Globally, approximately 830 women die each day due to pregnancy complications, 66% of these deaths occur in Sub-Saharan Africa [1]. Most of these deaths could be prevented by timely access to medical support during pregnancy, labour and the postnatal period. According to the ‘three delays’ model, maternal deaths are frequently related to a delay in: 1) seeking care, 2) reaching medical care and 3) receiving adequately skilled care once at a facility [2, 3].

Advanced preparation for childbirth by women who are pregnant and their families, is one method of reducing life threatening delays in receiving care during birth [4, 5]. Birth preparedness and complication readiness (BPCR) refers to a plan, organised during pregnancy in preparation for a normal delivery and in case of complications [4, 5]. BPCR includes: identifying a skilled birth attendant, identifying the nearest facility, saving money for the birth costs, organising transport in advance, identifying a birth companion, identifying a potential blood donor and knowing the signs of complications [6]. In 2015, the World Health Organisation (WHO) endorsed the use of BPCR interventions stating that, ‘BPCR interventions are recommended to increase the use of skilled care at birth and to increase the timely use of facility care for obstetric and newborn complications’ [7].

Data from the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) indicates that male partners in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa are key decision makers in many families, including decisions about maternal health [8]. It is plausible that male partners could play a pivotal role in a woman’s ability to prepare for birth and respond to obstetric complications. Male involvement in reproductive health was first agreed to be an international priority at the International Conference on Population and Development (UNFPA 1994) in Cairo. Since then countries throughout Sub-Saharan Africa have, to varying degrees, recognised the importance of including male partners in reproductive healthcare [9].

Most research and evidence syntheses about BPCR has been conducted from among women [4, 5, 10]. Although there is some evidence about the level of involvement and the role of men in BPCR and responding to obstetric complications, it is yet to be synthesised in systematically conducted reviews.

The literature contains significant diversity in the way male partner involvement has been conceptualised, the types of questions that have been asked, the research methods employed and the results. The lack of uniformity amongst the evidence prevents a systematic review being performed at this stage, and suggests that a scoping review is appropriate to determine the extent of research and to map, summarise and identify gaps in the evidence.

Objectives

This review aimed identify: the extent and quality of research performed on the topic of male partner involvement in BPCR in Sub-Saharan Africa; the degree to which populations and geographic areas are represented; how male partner involvement has been conceptualized; how male partners response to obstetric complications has been conceptualised; how the variation in male partners involvement has been measured and if any interventions have been performed.

Methods

This review adhered to Cochrane Consumers and Communication review group guidelines, JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews and the PRISMA checking list for Scoping Reviews to guide the search, data charting and reporting of the review [11,12,13]. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019126263).

Definitions

BPCR was defined as planning and/or organising during pregnancy in preparation for a normal delivery or in case of complications. The BPCR actions included saving money for birth; identifying transport; identifying the birth location; knowing the signs of pregnancy complications; identifying a skilled birth attendant, identifying someone to donate blood. Complications were defined as: Immediate, life threatening pregnancy or labour complications.

Male partner involvement was defined as a male partner’s attitudes, behaviours or experiences in relation to BPCR or obstetric emergencies.

Information sources and search strategy

Databases (EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE and Maternity and Infant Health) were searched for records in English. The review topic was divided into the following concepts 1) Male involvement, 2) Birth preparedness and complication readiness, 3) Obstetric emergencies and 4) Sub-Saharan Africa. Appropriate MeSH terms and truncated key words were adopted for each concept. Boolean operators AND /OR were used to link concepts and associated terms in the following way: (male involvement) AND (birth preparedness complication readiness OR obstetric emergencies) AND (Sub-Saharan Africa) (see supplementary table 1 for detailed search strategy). The authors also undertook a manual search of the reference lists in relevant publications, journals and websites for additional studies.

Eligibility criteria

The following eligibility criteria were adopted: peer-reviewed research; humans; English language; Sub-Saharan Africa; primary research; male participants or other participants reporting on male partner involvement (men’s attitudes, behaviours or experiences) and BPCR (at least one indicator) OR Pregnancy/ birth complications in aims, primary outcome (quantitative studies) or main theme (qualitative studies). All studies which met criteria after 2005 and until the final search date November 2019 were included.

Study selection

Study screening was performed in Covidence [14] with participation from all four reviewers. Studies were double screened at 1) title and abstract stage and 2) full text review stage. Differences of opinion at any stage were resolved by discussion between the author group.

Scope of the review

The search strategy specifically sought studies reporting on male partner involvement in birth preparedness and complication readiness or obstetric emergencies. The findings were analysed to identify male partner attitudes, behaviours and experiences in relation to BPCR and response to obstetric complications as defined by the review aims. Results regarding only attendance at antenatal care, the presence of skilled birth attendance and general involvement of men during pregnancy, childbirth and in maternal and child healthcare were not included. Male involvement in post-partum complications was reported if the results were available in the included articles, however the search strategy did not specifically search post-partum complications.

Data charting process and data items

At least two authors extracted data independently for each paper. Data charting fields included; authors (date); country; study design; aim; inclusion criteria; sample characteristics; number of participants; recruitment strategy; data source; analysis and key findings related to review.

Critical appraisal of sources of evidence

In order to evaluate the quality of research available on this topic, in accordance with the reviews aims a critical appraisal of the literature was performed using the Kmet checklist [15]. Separate checklists were used to evaluate research deemed primarily qualitative and primarily quantitative. Individual criteria were scored 0–2 and a final score was produced (sum of scores as a proportion of potential maximum score). All papers were assessed by two authors and differences of opinion resolved via discussion until a consensus was achieved.

Results

The selection process for all sources of evidence included is provided in a flow chart (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Flow chart of study selection

The study characteristics and results as they relate to the review aims, are provided for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies in Table 1 and intervention studies in Table 2.

Table 1 Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies included
Table 2 Intervention studies included

Extent and quality of research

The identification of papers is illustrated in Fig. 1. The extent and quality of research has been summarised below using the sub-headings: Study designs, populations and geographic locations and quality of research.

Study designs of included research

There were 35 studies included, comprising: 13 qualitative, 13 quantitative (cross-sectional), 5 mixed methods, and 4 intervention studies. Research methods included: focus group discussions (total participants approximately n = 602); in-depth interviews (n = 393); cross-sectional surveys (n = 5942); mixed methods (n = 5603) and intervention studies (n = 1983).

Populations and geographic locations of included research

Overall data were reported from approximately 14,550 participants including pregnant women or those who had experienced pregnancy or childbirth within the previous 3 years, their male partners and key informants such as health workers and community leaders.

Studies took place in: Burkina Faso (1); Ethiopia (5); Ghana (4); Kenya (2); Malawi (3); Nigeria (6); Tanzania (6); Uganda (6), Zambia (1) and Rwanda (1). The majority of studies reported exclusively on research in rural areas, with the remaining studies reporting on research in either urban areas or a mixture of urban and rural settings.

Quality of research overall

The study designs included in the review reflect an emerging field of research. The majority of study designs were either qualitative or cross-sectional observation surveys (many purely descriptive). There were no randomised controlled trials, but there were three quasi-experimental intervention studies [46,47,48] and one evaluation study [49]. These study designs limit the level of evidence available on the topic.

Sixteen primarily qualitative research studies were assessed using the Kmet qualitative checklist (see column QA in Tables 1 and 2). The quality of the studies was reasonable with a median score of .75 (range of .60 to .85). The criteria most commonly not met were the use of verification procedures to establish credibility and reflexivity of account (no study adequately documented the latter).

Fifteen primarily cross-sectional studies were assessed using the Kmet quantitative checklist (see column QA in Tables 1 and 2). The quality for the sources of evidence was reasonable with 3 studies receiving full scores [1] and only four dropping below .6. They produced a median score of .76 (range of .45 to 1). The criteria most commonly not met included: not controlling for confounding variables, not providing a measure of variance and flaws relating to the outcome measure.

Of three intervention studies included in this review, the median score for the Kmet quantitative checklist, was .45 (range: .67–1.0). Only one completed appropriately complex analysis of the data. A fourth evaluation study was assessed using the qualitative checklist to fit the reported data; this received a score of .60.

Conceptualisation of male partner involvement in BPCR

Nine studies discussed the role or conceptualisation of male partner involvement in BPCR using qualitative research methods [9, 19,20,21, 27, 36, 39, 41, 45]. Qualitative studies did not report a structured definition of BPCR; instead they relied on participants’ accounts of preparing for birth.

Male partners were described as playing an important role in pregnancy and birth decisions including preparing for birth and potential complications [27, 45]. These processes were complex, involved many people and varied between communities.

It was reported that although women have a central position in pregnancy and birth, they frequently lack decision-making power and resources [45]. Several studies described scenarios where pregnant women lacked agency and were not participants in decision-making processes around their health and body [16, 19, 22, 23]. This pertained in particular to decision about when to attend a health facility for a normal birth or to seek help in the case of obstetric complications.

Specific BPCR responsibilities reported for male partners were often related to material support [16, 20, 22, 40, 41, 45]. The most common role for men was to provide financial support for buying birth items (for example, a birth kit) or providing nutritious food [40]. Another common role described was to identify and organise transport to a facility [18, 19, 21].

A common conceptualisation was that male partners viewed pregnancy and childbirth as a “natural” process and this then influenced their ideas of how to prepare for birth [22]. This was explained through the use of finances for birth, which would not be used for birth in a facility unless complications occurred, and would instead be used for clothes and food. In general male partners strived to do their best [26], for example providing adequate care to one’s wife was considered a symbol of social status in Malawi [41]. However, men’s involvement was often hampered by barriers. Lack of awareness and poverty were common challenges experienced by male partners in fulfilling their perceived responsibilities [16, 40].

Measurement of BPCR in male partners

Fourteen studies reported the level of BPCR or recognition of obstetric danger signs among male partners [30,31,32, 36,37,38, 41,42,43, 49]. All except one study [49] used quantitative methods. Nine studies employed a standardised tool developed by John Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics (JHPIEGO) to measure BPCR (this consisted of using the BPCR tool to identify if male partners had performed the following items: saving money for birth; identifying transport; identifying the birth location; knowing the signs of pregnancy complications; identifying a skilled birth attendant, identifying someone to donate blood) or measured the recognition of pregnancy danger signs (please see Table 4 for a full list) [28,29,30,31, 34, 35, 37, 42, 43]. Each study adapted the questionnaire to local conditions. Three studies used a study specific questionnaire to measure BPCR [38, 41, 43]. Two studies reported aspects of BPCR through a questionnaire designed for other purposes [32, 36].

As displayed in Table 3, proportions of male partners who had completed each BPCR indicator varied between studies. Commonly performed actions included: saving money, 20–99%; purchasing a birth kit, 38–54%; organising transport, 10–69%; and identifying where to go in an emergency, 2–78%. The least commonly performed actions included: identifying a skilled birth attendant, 1–41% and identifying a blood donor, 0–18%.

Table 3 Rate of BPCR among male partners

As displayed in Table 4, there was variability in the way studies reported men’s recognition of various pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum danger signs. Pregnancy danger signs were more commonly reported indicators (compared to childbirth or postpartum). Several studies reported that very small proportions of male partners indicated recognition of danger signs (< 15% recognition for most indicators) [30, 35, 37, 42]. The remaining studies reported reasonably low rates (< 60% for most indicators) [28, 31, 34, 43].

Table 4 Male partners’ knowledge of danger signs

Conceptualisation of male partner involvement in responding to obstetric complications

Eleven studies reported information about male partners role in responding to complications [16,17,18,19,20, 22,23,24,25,26, 41]. All, but one study, were qualitative [41].

In all descriptions of families responding to complications, male partners were central to the decision making process [16,17,18,19,20, 22,23,24,25,26, 41]. Two studies reported that male partners were involved in maternal healthcare only when pregnancy complications occurred [16, 17]. Frequently the decisions male partners made in relation to preparing for birth were not unilateral, but involved consultation with women, other family members such as male partners’ mothers or traditional birth attendants [16, 19, 27, 41].

The conceptualisation of complications in childbirth by study participants was a mixture of medical and spiritual conditions. Responses were guided by these ideas, some conditions requiring medical treatment and others needing guidance from a traditional birth attendant (TBA). For example in one study male partners would seek advice from a spiritual healer instead of a health facility if their partner experienced convulsions while pregnant [22].

In general, male partners were found to be involved throughout the process of responding to complications. In the healthcare setting there were reports that male partners were not always welcomed. Some men described being excluded by health professionals or not having a clear role [18, 24, 26]. In the home setting partners were responsible for sourcing and administering several types of medications [25]. Emotionally male partners were impacted by the experience of pregnancy complications with experiences characterised by intense fear, worry and loss [24].

It was noted that although male partners often played a key role in decisions around maternal health, they lacked knowledge on maternal and child health [20, 22, 40]. Both women and men reported a desire for men to be more knowledgeable about BPCR [22].

Interventions to improve BPCR or knowledge of danger signs among male partners

The findings from four trials of interventions to improve levels of male partner knowledge of BPCR or awareness of danger signs are summarised in Table 2 Evaluation methods were mixed in the complexity of analyses and type of data collected - which prohibits reliable comparison. The most methodologically robust evaluation did report a significant improvement in male partners’ awareness of danger signs [48]; the remaining three did not report any improvement.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review conducted of sub-Saharan studies on the involvement of male partners in BPCR and response to obstetric emergencies. The synthesis of the literature on this topic has implications for research, policy and practice across the region.

Extent and quality of research into male partner involvement in BPCR

The diversity of study designs, aims and source countries in this body of literature reflects an emerging stage of research; as a result, the review yielded strong evidence in some areas and gaps in others. The evidence from quantitative studies may be regarded as limited because most of the study designs sit low on the hierarchy of evidence [50] and the samples/studies do not represent all of the Sub-Saharan Africa. The studies are limited to certain regions within the countries studied and lack population level results. There is a distinct lack of higher-level research, for example robust research trialling interventions to increase male involvement in BPCR. Although the average quality of included studies was reasonable, it is not possible to generalise based on the large proportion of qualitative research.

However, for research at an emergent stage, the evidence did contain some strengths. One of the strengths is the inclusion of several studies using qualitative methods by local researchers (often in local dialects). This suggests there has been an effort to conceptualise male partner involvement in BPCR in a way that is culturally sensitive and does not impose an inappropriate framework. The development of a standardised tool to measure BPCR [6] and the use of this tool by the majority of quantitative research projects supports inter-study comparisons, and its adaptation to local contexts ensures culturally appropriateness. The quality assessment revealed most studies were performed with sound methodology and collected data from over 13,000 people. The findings yielded relatively consistent results, despite diverse methods and contexts.

Conceptualisation of male involvement in BPCR and responding to obstetric emergencies

Defining the role of or conceptualising male partner’s involvement in preparing for birth and responding to complications was achieved using qualitative research methods. This is appropriate given the lack of adequate evidence in this area. However qualitative research often has small, selective samples and cannot be used to generalise to the broader populations. Moreover, the geographic coverage of the research was inconsistent across Sub-Sahara Africa, leaving many countries and cultural groups unrepresented and some countries with multiple studies. Consequently, the concepts and roles of male partners’ involvement in BPCR can only be used as a guide to inform future research and cannot be considered definitive.

The conceptualisation of male partner involvement yielded key themes across studies. In many contexts male partners had some role in preparing for birth and consistently across studies they were instrumental in responding to obstetric complications. They were directly involved through their position in the chain of decisions and indirectly involved through providing financial and logistical support. The understanding of their role is significant to the development of interventions to support BPCR in families and communities. Knowledge of the male partner’s role should be further developed with more widespread research, to inform interventions to increase BPCR in families.

Male partners were interested in taking appropriate action [26]. However, their involvement did not always align smoothly with other systems and processes. Participants reported difficulties in dealing with the healthcare system, with some male partners reporting being excluded from healthcare decisions [39]. On the other hand, healthcare staff described delays in providing care because male partners were not available to give permission. Poverty was also described as a common barrier to male partners fulfilling what they saw as their responsibilities [45].

Measurement of male partner’s involvement in BPCR

Measurement of male partner’s level of BPCR had some degree of consistency because many studies used the tool developed by JHPIEGO [6]. However, there were still discrepancies between studies in scoring or summarising the results from the tool (e.g. defining good/poor BPCR). Although there has been an effort to validate and adapt the standardised tool to different cultural contexts, it is not clear if it has been adapted for use with male partners.

Studies that did not use the tool developed by JHPIEGO contained diverse definitions of BPCR, making it hard to compare. The studies using research specific tools to measure involvement also tended to report higher levels of involvement.

There was little consistency in summarising recognition of danger signs: most studies had unique indicators, which prevented a comparison between studies. This variance was greater between studies not using a standardised measure. For example it was reported that 58% of participants could correctly identify more than nine danger signs when presented and asked if they were ‘true’ or ‘false’ [33] with a study specific questionnaire. Researchers using a standardised measure asked men to spontaneously mention danger signs and found that 42% (37), 49% (30) and 53% (31) of men could not identify more than one.

The literature overall presented a general theme that although male partners frequently make decisions about maternal healthcare, in general, they lack knowledge regarding maternal health concerns. This was described in the findings from both qualitative and quantitative papers included in this scoping review. Male partners’ recognition of pregnancy and birth danger signs was poor across all studies and their level of BPCR was generally low. Saving money and purchasing birth items were the most commonly performed actions, and some BPCR actions were almost completely neglected. For instance, very few men identified a potential blood donor or a skilled birth attendant. This increases the risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. These results suggest that male partner’s preparation for birth and complications can often be improved, and this has the potential to improve outcomes for women and children.

Interventional studies

Studies of male involvement interventions were the least common type of research with large variation in the quality of methods. Only one interventional study was considered robust and received the maximum QA score of 1 [48]. Home Based Life Saving Skills provided joint training of pregnant women and family with the aim to educate about BPCR, danger signs, promote health seeking behaviour and provide skills to handle emergencies. This study reported significant improvement in male partners’ recognition of pregnancy danger signs, suggesting that properly designed interventions may be useful in improving male partner knowledge.

Implications for future research

The gaps revealed in this scoping review provide future research opportunities. In many sub-Saharan African countries, there is inadequate evidence on the role of male partners in preparing for birth and responding to pregnancy complications. From the 46 countries listed as Sub-Sahara Africa by the United Nations, only 10 were identified as having any evidence regarding male involvement in BPCR. Future research could focus on reporting levels of BPCR among male partners in Sub-Saharan countries with long delays in receiving care not represented in this review.

From the countries already represented (for example Ethiopia), future research could focus on examining associations between male partner’s level of BPCR and maternal health outcomes. It is assumed because of male partners’ role in decision making that increased knowledge of danger signs and BPCR will translate into improved maternal health outcomes [4], but this hypothesis remains to be tested in different contexts.

Research should also focus on evaluating interventions to improve male partner level of BPCR and knowledge of obstetric complications. This is extremely limited at present and it is not clear what interventions are useful in improving male partner BPCR and knowledge of danger signs.

Implications for policy, programs and practice

The findings suggest that in specific countries in sub-Saharan Africa, male partners are involved in BPCR and responding to pregnancy complications, yet their level of preparation and knowledge of pregnancy complications is poor. Policies, programs and practice could focus on improving male partners’ level of knowledge about complications and the importance of preparing for birth. As with all interventions encouraging male involvement in maternal health, this would need to be performed in a way that did not compromise women’s autonomy or safety and may involve additional training for healthcare workers.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the diversity of study designs, aims and source countries in this body of literature reflects an emerging stage of research; as a result, the review yielded strong evidence in some areas and gaps in others. Male partners’ involvement in BPCR and responding to obstetric emergencies can be conceptualised as being centrally involved in responding to complications and having some role in preparing for birth through their position in the chain of decisions and provision of logistic support. However, their knowledge of pregnancy complications and level of preparation for birth is low, suggesting they are making decisions without being fully informed. There is limited evidence on interventions to improve men’s knowledge on BPCR and signs of complications, however improvements were recorded following an intervention in Tanzania [48]. Future research efforts should be focused on producing standardised, culturally appropriate, higher level evidence and randomised controlled trials of interventions. As pregnancy complications are a leading cause of maternal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, appropriate preparation for birth and complications by women, male partners, families and the community have the potential to lower these risks.

Availability of data and materials

All publications referred to in this review are publicly available.

Abbreviations

BPCR:

Birth preparedness and complication readiness

WHO:

World health organisation

DHS:

Demographic and health survey

MP:

Male partner

FGD:

Focus group discussions

IDI:

In-depth interview

SSI:

Semi-structured interview

SBA:

Skilled birth attendant

HW:

Health worker

TBA:

Traditional birth attendant

ANC:

Antenatal care

MCH:

Maternal child health

QA:

Quality assessment

JHPIEGO:

John Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynaecology and Obstetrics

*:

Kmet qualitative checklist

†:

Kmet quantitative checklist

QA:

Quality assessment max score 1

References

  1. 1.

    Takah NF, Kennedy ITR, Johnman C. The impact of approaches in improving male partner involvement in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV on the uptake of maternal antiretroviral therapy among HIV-seropositive pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e018207. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018207.

  2. 2.

    Pacagnella RC, Cecatti JG, Osis MJ, Souza JP. The role of delays in severe maternal morbidity and mortality: expanding the conceptual framework. Reprod Health Matters. 2012;20(39):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Thaddeus SMD. Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(8):1091–110.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Soubeiga D, Gauvin L, Hatem M, Johri M. Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) interventions to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(1):129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Miltenburg A, Roggeveen Y, Shields L, Stekelenburg J, Portela A. Impact of birth preparedness and complication readiness interventions on birth with a skilled attendant: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0143382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    JHPIEGO. Monitoring birth preparedness and complication readiness. Tools and indicators for maternal and newborn health. Edited by: Health MaN. Baltimore: JHPIEGO; 2004.

  7. 7.

    World Health Organization. WHO recommendations on health promotion interventions for maternal and newborn health 2015. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

  8. 8.

    ICF. The DHS Program website. Funded by USAID; 2019. Available from: http://www.dhsprogram.com. Cited 25.11.2019.

  9. 9.

    Moshi F, Nyamhanga T. Understanding the preference for homebirth; an exploration of key barriers to facility delivery in rural Tanzania. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Solnes Miltenburg A, Roggeveen Y, van Roosmalen J, Smith H. Factors influencing implementation of interventions to promote birth preparedness and complication readiness. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ryan R. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. ‘Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group: data synthesis and analysis’. 2013. http://cccrg.cochrane.org.

  12. 12.

    Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global; https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12.

  13. 13.

    Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MD, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org.

  15. 15.

    Kmet LM, Lee RC, Cook LS. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Some DT, Sombie I, Meda N. How decision for seeking maternal care is made--a qualitative study in two rural medical districts of Burkina Faso. Reprod Health. 2013;10:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ganle JK, Dery I. ‘What men don’t know can hurt women’s health’: a qualitative study of the barriers to and opportunities for men’s involvement in maternal healthcare in Ghana. Reprod Health. 2015;12(1):93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Story WT, Barrington C, Fordham C, Sodzi-Tettey S, Barker PM, Singh K. Male involvement and accommodation during obstetric emergencies in rural Ghana: a qualitative analysis. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;42(4):211–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Aborigo RA, Reidpath DD, Oduro AR, Allotey P. Male involvement in maternal health: perspectives of opinion leaders. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Brubaker K, Nelson BD, McPherson H, Ahn R, Oguttu M, Burke TF. Qualitative study of the role of men in maternal health in resource-limited communities in western Kenya. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;135(3):245–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Manda-Taylor L, Mwale D, Phiri T, Walsh A, Matthews A, Brugha R, et al. Changing times? Gender roles and relationships in maternal, newborn and child health in Malawi. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Aarnio P, Kulmala T, Olsson P. Husband’s role in handling pregnancy complications in Mangochi District, Malawi: a call for increased focus on community level male involvement. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2018;16:61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pembe AB, Urassa DP, Darf E, Carlsted A, Olsson P. Qualitative study on maternal referrals in rural Tanzania: decision making and acceptance of referral advice. Afr J Reprod Health. 2008;12(2):120–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Mbalinda SN, Nakimuli A, Nakubulwa S, Kakaire O, Osinde MO, Kakande N, et al. Male partners’ perceptions of maternal near miss obstetric morbidity experienced by their spouses. Reprod Health. 2015;12:23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Nansubuga E, Ayiga N. Male involvement in utilization of emergency obstetric care and averting of deaths for maternal near misses in Rakai district in Central Uganda. Afr Popul Stud. 2015;29(2):1810-19.

  26. 26.

    Kaye D, Kakaire O, Nakimuli A, Osinde M, Mbalinda S, Kakande N. Male involvement during pregnancy and childbirth: men’s perceptions, practices and experiences during the care for women who developed childbirth complications in Mulago Hospital, Uganda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(54). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-54.

  27. 27.

    Sialubanje C, Massar K, Kirch EM, van der Pijl MSG, Hamer DH, Ruiter RAC. Husbands’ experiences and perceptions regarding the use of maternity waiting homes in rural Zambia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;133(1):108–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Baraki Z, Wendem F, Gerensea H, Teklay H. Husbands involvement in birth preparedness and complication readiness in Axum town, Tigray region, Ethiopia, 2017. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Weldearegay G. Determinant factors of male involvement in birth preparedness and complication readiness at Mekelle town; a community based study. Sci J Public Health. 2015;3(2):175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mersha AG. Male involvement in the maternal health care system: implication towards decreasing the high burden of maternal mortality. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tadesse M, Boltena AT, Asamoah BO. Husbands’ participation in birth preparedness and complication readiness and associated factors in Wolaita Sodo town, southern Ethiopia. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2018;10(1):e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Atuahene MD, Arde-Acquah S, Atuahene NF, Adjuik M, Ganle JK. Inclusion of men in maternal and safe motherhood services in inner-city communities in Ghana: evidence from a descriptive cross-sectional survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Dunn A, Haque S, Innes M. Rural Kenyan men’s awareness of danger signs of obstetric complications. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;10:39.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Oguntunde O, Nyenwa J, Yusuf FM, Dauda DS, Salihu A, Sinai I. Factors associated with knowledge of obstetric danger signs and perceptions of the need for obstetric care among married men in northern Nigeria: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2271-1.

  35. 35.

    Sekoni OO, Owoaje ET. Male knowledge of danger signs of obstetric complications in an urban city in south West Nigeria. Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2014;12(2):89.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kalisa R, Malande OO. Birth preparedness, complication readiness and male partner involvement for obstetric emergencies in rural Rwanda. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;25:91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    August F, Pembe AB, Mpembeni R, Axemo P, Darj E. Men’s knowledge of obstetric danger signs, birth preparedness and complication readiness in rural Tanzania. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Shimpuku Y, Madeni FE, Horiuchi S, Leshabari SC. Perceptional gaps among women, husbands and family members about intentions for birthplace: a cross-sectional study. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2017;25:e2840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kakaire O, Kaye DK, Osinde MO. Male involvement in birth preparedness and complication readiness for emergency obstetric referrals in rural Uganda. Reprod Health. 2011;8:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Andarge E, Nigussie A, Wondafrash M. Factors associated with birth preparedness and complication readiness in southern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Aarnio P, Chipeta E, Kulmala T. Men’s perceptions of delivery care in rural Malawi: exploring community level barriers to improving maternal health. Health Care for Women Int. 2013;34(6):419–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Iliyasu Z, Abubakar IS, Galadanci HS, Aliyu MH. Birth preparedness, complication readiness and fathers’ participation in maternity care in a northern Nigerian community. Afr J Reprod Health. 2010;14(1):21–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Nwakwuo GC, Oshonwoh FE. Assessment of the level of male involvement in safe motherhood in southern Nigeria. J Community Health. 2013;38(2):349–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Odimegwu C, Adewuyi A, Odebiyi T, Aina B, Adesina Y, Olatubara O, et al. Men’s role in emergency obstetric care in Osun state of Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2005;9(3):59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Singh D, Lample M, Earnest J. The involvement of men in maternal health care: cross-sectional, pilot case studies from Maligita and Kibibi, Uganda. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ibrahim M, Idris S, Olorukooba A, Sabitu K, Sufiyan MA, Yahaya S, et al. Effect of a behavioral intervention on male involvement in birth preparedness in a rural community in Northern Nigerian. Ann Niger Med. 2014;8(1):20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Mushi D, Mpembeni R, Jahn A. Effectiveness of community based safe motherhood promoters in improving the utilization of obstetric care. The case of Mtwara rural district in Tanzania. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    August F, Pembe AB, Mpembeni R, Axemo P, Darj E. Can community health workers improve male involvement in maternal health: evidence from rural Tanzania. Ann Glob Health. 2016;82(3):377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Ekirapa-Kiracho E, Namazzi G, Tetui M, Mutebi A, Waiswa P, Oo H, et al. Unlocking community capabilities for improving maternal and newborn health: participatory action research to improve birth preparedness, health facility access, and newborn care in rural Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(Supplement 7):638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12(1):77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support of the library team at Monash University for their help in devising a search strategy.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to study design, screening articles and quality assessment. FF conceptualised and drafted the manuscript, KW, BZ and JF guided analysis and result interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Faye Forbes.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Karen Wynter is an associate editor at BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. Other authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Contains a supplementary table documenting the search strategy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forbes, F., Wynter, K., Zeleke, B.M. et al. Male partner involvement in birth preparedness, complication readiness and obstetric emergencies in Sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 128 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03606-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Birth preparedness and complication readiness
  • Male partner, fathers
  • Male involvement
  • Sub-Sahara Africa