Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity

Advancing a conceptual model to improve... | Gates Open Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://gatesopenresearch.org/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'gates'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); Skip to content Gates Open Research file_upload Submit via VeriXiv search clear search menu close clear Search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit via VeriXiv My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Publication Charges Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Contact Blog My Account Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In Submit via VeriXiv { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1" }, "headline": "Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for...", "datePublished": "2017-11-06T09:23:30", "dateModified": "2017-11-06T09:23:30", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "May Sudhinaraset" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Patience Afulani" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nadia Diamond-Smith" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sanghita Bhattacharyya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "France Donnay" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Dominic Montagu" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "Gates Open Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://gatesopenresearch.org/img/AMP/Gates_image.png", "height": 600, "width": 47 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://gatesopenresearch.org/img/AMP/Gates_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 94 }, "description": "Background: Globally, substantial health inequities exist with regard to maternal, newborn and reproductive health. Lack of access to good quality care—across its many dimensions—is a key factor driving these inequities. Significant global efforts have been made towards improving the quality of care within facilities for maternal and reproductive health. However, one critically overlooked aspect of quality improvement activities is person-centered care. Main body: The objective of this paper is to review existing literature and theories related to person-centered reproductive health care to develop a framework for improving the quality of reproductive health, particularly in low and middle-income countries. This paper proposes the Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity, which describes three levels of interdependent contexts for women’s reproductive health: societal and community determinants of health equity, women’s health-seeking behaviors, and the quality of care within the walls of the facility. It lays out eight domains of person-centered care for maternal and reproductive health. Conclusions: Person-centered care has been shown to improve outcomes; yet, there is no consensus on definitions and measures in the area of women’s reproductive health care. The proposed Framework reviews essential aspects of person-centered reproductive health care." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://gatesopenresearch.org/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://gatesopenresearch.org/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1", "name": "Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The..." } } ] } Home Browse Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Sudhinaraset M, Afulani P, Diamond-Smith N et al. Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12756.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] May Sudhinaraset 1,2 , Patience Afulani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6739-234X 1 , Nadia Diamond-Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8711-3029 1 , Sanghita Bhattacharyya 3 , France Donnay 4 , Dominic Montagu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2477-5543 1 May Sudhinaraset 1,2 , Patience Afulani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6739-234X 1 , [...] Nadia Diamond-Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8711-3029 1 , Sanghita Bhattacharyya 3 , France Donnay 4 , Dominic Montagu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2477-5543 1 PUBLISHED 06 Nov 2017 Author details Author details 1 Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA 2 Community Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA 3 Public Health Foundation of India, Delhi, 122002, India 4 Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA May Sudhinaraset Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Patience Afulani Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Nadia Diamond-Smith Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Sanghita Bhattacharyya Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing France Donnay Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Dominic Montagu Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background: Globally, substantial health inequities exist with regard to maternal, newborn and reproductive health. Lack of access to good quality care—across its many dimensions—is a key factor driving these inequities. Significant global efforts have been made towards improving the quality of care within facilities for maternal and reproductive health. However, one critically overlooked aspect of quality improvement activities is person-centered care. Main body: The objective of this paper is to review existing literature and theories related to person-centered reproductive health care to develop a framework for improving the quality of reproductive health, particularly in low and middle-income countries. This paper proposes the Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity, which describes three levels of interdependent contexts for women’s reproductive health: societal and community determinants of health equity, women’s health-seeking behaviors, and the quality of care within the walls of the facility. It lays out eight domains of person-centered care for maternal and reproductive health. Conclusions: Person-centered care has been shown to improve outcomes; yet, there is no consensus on definitions and measures in the area of women’s reproductive health care. The proposed Framework reviews essential aspects of person-centered reproductive health care. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Maternal Health, Reproductive Health, Quality, Equity, Health Seeking Behavior, Quality of Care, Person-Centered Care, Patient Experience Corresponding Author(s) May Sudhinaraset ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: May Sudhinaraset Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Gates Foundation [OPP1127467]; David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2015-62545]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2017 Sudhinaraset M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Sudhinaraset M, Afulani P, Diamond-Smith N et al. Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12756.1 ) First published: 06 Nov 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12756.1 ) Latest published: 06 Nov 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12756.1 ) Introduction Every day, 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, with 99% of all deaths occurring in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) 1 . Poor quality care is a major factor in maternal deaths and a deterrent to women accessing health services. It has long-lasting effects beyond the walls of the facility, including psychological effects for women, higher risk of dissolution and violence for families 2 , and the potential impoverishment of households due to high costs of care 3 . Poor, less educated, younger, and minority women are less likely to receive good quality reproductive health care 4 . The quality of facilities may therefore be a catalyst for where health inequities are produced and reproduced, further exacerbating intergenerational inequalities in health 5 . One aspect of quality that needs to be addressed is the person-centered dimension of quality, the most overt form of which is the mistreatment of women in health facilities. In many parts of the globe, women are hit, slapped, shouted at, and abandoned during childbirth 6 . The Universal Rights of Childbearing Women Charter denounces such acts through its declaration: “Every woman has a right to dignified, respectful, sexual and reproductive health, including during childbirth” 7 . Consequently, global movements have called for the need to focus on person-centered care (PCC) 8 : Engaging women and communities in health care to improve the quality of patient experience and patient-provider interactions. Adapted from the definition by the Institute of Medicine, we define person-centered reproductive health care (PCRHC) as: “Providing reproductive health care that is respectful of and responsive to individual women and their families’ preferences, needs and values, and ensuring that their values guide all clinical decisions” 9 . PCRHC needs more emphasis, both as an indicator of human rights and a valued quality domain, and for its association with better health outcomes 10 . For example, PCC aspects of quality, such as information-sharing and interpersonal relations, are correlated with increased adoption and continuation of modern family planning methods 11 . Communication between women and their provider during prenatal and delivery care strongly determines women’s satisfaction and utilization of services 12 , 13 . Continuous support during labor and delivery from partners and providers, including companions of choice, is associated with shorter labor, better coping with pain, decreased incidence of operative birth, increased incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery, increased maternal satisfaction, less anxiety, and increased rates of breastfeeding initiation 13 , 14 . Moreover, important predictors of women’s satisfaction with care during delivery in health facilities have been identified as respect, politeness, friendliness, emotional support by a birth companion, privacy, and cleanliness of facilities 15 . While global initiatives have begun to address PCC for women’s health 16 , there is a lack of consensus on how it relates to clinical aspects of quality, how to measure PCC, and how to apply these measures across different contexts. The objective of this paper is to review theories related to PCRHC, and to develop a framework as it relates to improving the quality of reproductive health, particularly in LMICs. This paper proposes a new framework called the “Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity” that lays out the dimensions of PCC and the ways in which it links with clinical quality of care in facilities and broader factors at the community and national level. Understanding person-centered reproductive health care: definitions and measures While PCC has received increased attention in developed settings, there is no consensus on how to measure it for reproductive health outcomes. Thus, in order to define PCRHC and identify unifying measures for it, we assessed separate bodies of work that discuss overlapping issues related to PCC, identified from PubMed and other databases as part of a forthcoming systematic review on measures of maternal health person-centered care (unpublished study, Nicholas Rubashkin, Nadia Diamond-Smith, Ruby Warnock; UCSF). This includes literature from health system responsiveness 17 – 19 , perceived quality of care 20 , 21 , mistreatment of women during childbirth 6 , 22 , 23 , and the general literature on quality of care for maternal health 24 – 28 and family planning 29 , 30 . In addition, we examined the general literature on PCC, mostly from developed settings 9 , 31 – 33 . These separate bodies of work include important aspects of PCC, yet are framed differently. The World Health Survey module on health system responsiveness (HSR) takes a broader focus on non-clinical measures of how individuals are treated and the environment in which treatment occurs in health facilities; however, it is not specific for reproductive health. Domains from the HSR include autonomy, dignity, confidentiality of personal information, quality of basic amenities, choice, prompt attention, clarity of communication, and social support 17 – 19 . The literature on mistreatment, on the other hand, tends to be specific to care during childbirth, but is framed in the negative—disrespect and abuse, which is described as treatments that make women feel humiliated or disrespected 22 . Bohren et al. identify the following typologies for mistreatment of women during childbirth: Physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, stigma and discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport between women and providers, health system conditions and constraints, and inappropriate demands for payment 6 . The literature on mistreatment of women has spurred a lot of work around respectful maternity care 7 . PCRHC, however, captures, and extends beyond, respectful maternity care. We also explored previous measures of quality of care and PCC in the family planning literature, identified from PubMed, including (but not limited to) survey tools, such as the Service Provision Assessment, Balanced Counseling Strategy, and Quick Investigation of Quality, and measures used by individual studies 11 , 34 – 36 . Based on these literatures, we identified eight domains of PCRHC, described below. These domains when put into practice, would each encompass specific measures (see Table 1 ). Table 1. Domains and definitions for person-centered care. Dignity Dignity refers to the ability of women to receive care in a respectful and caring setting. It captures the typologies of physical and verbal abuse from the literature on mistreatment of women during labor and delivery, as well as less subtle acts during patient-provider encounters that make women and their families feel disrespected. Autonomy Autonomy implies that providers of health services respect women’s views of what is appropriate and support women, her family, and companion of choice to make informed choices. This includes providing consented care. An example of a measure for autonomy is whether women feel involved in decision-making about their care and whether their permission is sought before treatments. Privacy/Confidentiality This relates to privacy in the environment in which care is provided, and the concept of privileged communication and confidentiality of medical records. An example is whether women feel others who are not involved in their care could hear information about their care or could see them during physical examinations or during labor and delivery without physical examinations. Communication This domain refers to providers clearly explaining to women and family the nature of their condition, details of treatment, and available treatment options. An example is whether providers clearly explain to women their conditions and the purpose of treatments, any side effects of treatments, and whether women understand explanations. Social support This domain reflects the extent to which women have access to their companion of choice when receiving care. It also includes their right to receive food and other consumables from family where deemed appropriate. An example is whether family and friends are allowed to stay with them during care. Supportive care This refers to providers providing care in a timely, compassionate and caring manner, as well as integration of care in a way that is responsive to patient needs. It also captures abandonment or denial of care, protection from harm and unnecessary procedures, and patient safety. It includes women’s perceptions of how providers respond to them when they need more help. Trust This captures how women assess their care with providers. Here, measures include whether women feel providers tell them the truth about their care, their health, their child, their situation, and whether they have confidence in the competence of their providers. Health facility environment This captures the quality of the facility and providing a fully enabled environment, including the commodities and equipment, but also referral system, communication and transportation, maternal and neonatal health team that can cover the full continuum of care, environment where staff are respected and valued and that is clean, and the extent to which a health facility offers a welcoming and pleasant environment. Examples include clean surroundings and enough space in waiting rooms and wards. These domains are not mutually exclusive. For instance, autonomy depends on communication, while trust may depend on perceptions of supportive care as well as communication. Nonetheless, the domains provide a comprehensive map for developing measures that capture key aspects of PCRHC. While certain components of PCC are based in human rights and should be part of universal standards of practice, there are cultural differences in terms of expectations of care. These domains may be used to develop measures that are culturally relevant and uphold basic human rights. Grounding person-centered care in existing frameworks and theory To develop a framework for PCRHC, we started with the general PCC literature, which has been widely applied in nursing care 37 – 39 . In particular, McCormack and McCance’s (2006) framework comprises four embedded constructs: 1) Prerequisites, which focuses on the attributes of the provider; 2) The care environment , including supportive systems, effective staff relationships, and organizational systems; 3) Person-centered processes , including working with patient’s beliefs and values, engagement, having sympathetic presence, sharing decision-making and providing for physical needs. These activities influence the fourth construct, person-centered outcomes , such as satisfaction and involvement with care. In this framework, PCC is described both as a process and outcome 38 . However, this framework does not show how PCC relates to clinical care. The World Health Organization (WHO)’s Quality of Care framework for maternal and newborn health helps to address this link, as it describes how person-centered outcomes relate to clinical quality. In addition, it illustrates how broader health systems lead to the quality of care in facilities, ultimately impacting individual and facility-level outcomes 40 . The framework describes quality of care in terms of provision of care and experiences of care, and posits a bidirectional process between provision of care and experiences of care, which ultimately leads to outcomes including person-centered outcomes and key maternal and newborn health outcomes. This framework conceptualizes PCC specifically as an outcome. Addressing the social and cultural determinants of health is important in eliminating health inequities—the systematic differences in health status of different population groups that are avoidable or unnecessary 41 . While these frameworks are useful in understanding quality of care, they neglect how women may experience differential treatment based on their social status, influences of communities, and more distal factors, such as gender and violence norms and women’s roles in society. Cultural Health Capital (CHC) theory fills this gap and has been used to explore how social status and communities may affect PCC 42 . Rooted in Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital 43 , 44 , CHC is defined as a “specialized set of cultural skills, behaviors and interactional styles that are valued and leveraged as assets by both patients and providers in clinical encounters” 45 . CHC is related to the concept of social capital, seen as a resource that patients are able to use to improve interactions in the healthcare setting. Importantly, CHC develops over time and is deeply embedded in patients’ past experiences with healthcare providers or perceptions of healthcare institutions—these are a learned set of skills based on practice and experience. Women in lower social standing groups, including the poor, unmarried, and less educated, may not have past experiences with healthcare settings in order to develop CHC. PCC, therefore, is more challenging in contexts where CHC is low 42 , further deepening health inequities. The role of expectations of care is reflected in various frameworks on health-seeking behavior. For example, Thaddeus and Maine’s model on the three delays that contribute to maternal mortality among women with complications 46 , as well as its expansion by Gabrysch and Campbell to include care-seeking for uncomplicated pregnancies, all include the role of perceptions of quality care as well as sociocultural factors, economic and physical accessibility 47 . The Disparities in Skilled Birth Attendance framework further expands on previous work by highlighting that disparities in three important determinants: Perceived need for care, perceived accessibility (physical and financial) of the service, and perceived quality of care contribute to disparities in use of skilled birth attendants 48 . Finally, past frameworks have highlighted the importance of societal/national factors in understanding health equity and maternal healthcare. A framework developed by Freedman and Kruk (2014) for understanding respectful care during childbirth discussed how system level “deficiencies” that are seen as normal and accepted can lead to poor treatment of women 49 . Jewkes and Penn-Kekana conclude that violence against women in obstetric care settings is the result of broader gender inequality, which places women in subordinate positions and creates normative power differentials between providers and patients 50 . While most of the current evidence focuses on childbirth, we believe that the same factors apply more broadly to reproductive health issues, including family planning and safe abortion. Towards a conceptual framework: the person-centered care framework for reproductive health equity The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity builds on these existing frameworks, theories, and literature to situate the domains of PCC ( Figure 1 ). The Framework has a number of assumptions. First, there are three levels of interacting contexts at play in achieving reproductive health equity. The three levels include: 1) Societal and community determinants of health equity; 2) women’s health-seeking behaviors; and 3) facility-level factors, including the provision of technical care and the person-centered dimensions of care. Second, there is a bidirectional influence between health-seeking behaviors and quality of care women experience in facilities. We assume that not only does the decision to seek care influence women’s experiences in the facility, but that the quality of care in the facility will also influence communities’ and individuals’ perceptions of care, needs for care, expectations of care, and ultimately seeking care. Lastly, building off WHO’s quality of care framework 40 , the Framework also assumes that there is a bidirectional relationship between provision of care and PCC. Figure 1. Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity. Determinants of health equity include broader health systems, gender and violence norms, women’s role in society, stigma and discrimination related to education, social status, ethnicity, and social capital. The way in which women are treated in healthcare settings and in communities in general is oftentimes a reflection of much broader, societal level norms, policies, and behaviors. In settings where women have low status in the household or community, or there is societal acceptance of differential treatment or discrimination based on socio-economic status, such as racial/ethnic minority groups or social statuses, it is possible that there is more normative acceptance of poor treatment of women in the health facility. These determinants of health equity influence women’s health-seeking behaviors, including expectations of and decision to seek care. In line with CHC theory, if women have never been to a healthcare facility prior to their delivery, as is common in India, where less than a third of women go to three or more antenatal care visits 51 , their expectations are likely to differ significantly from a woman who has had past experiences with formal healthcare. Low levels of awareness and realization of deficiencies in services due to illiteracy often leads to lower expectation of the health system 52 . It is likely that women living in high poverty communities are influenced by their first experience of institutional care, and that their expectations diminish or change with increasing familiarity with the system. Importantly, the experience of care at the facility shapes community’s perception, expectations of care, and ultimately, whether a woman chooses to go to a facility or not 53 . In developing countries, women with complications delay or avoid seeking care in the same facility if they had a previous negative experience with a provider 52 , 54 . Thus, women may be less likely to: 1) Seek care; 2) have high expectations of care; and 3) have skills and resources to navigate the system and demand better care. At the facility level, we build on the WHO’s Quality of Care framework by expanding on experiences of care and specifying the domains of PCC. While under-developed in the literature, providers also have constraints in providing quality maternity care, including low salary, lack of recognition, restrictions on clinical practice, lack of supplies and equipment, moral distress and burn out 55 . In addition, there is a feedback loop from the facility-level to community perceptions. For example, women’s experiences of care, whether positive or negative, will be fed back to their sisters, neighbors, daughters, and friends, thus influencing community perceptions of facilities, expectations of care, and ultimately, whether a woman chooses to go to a facility or not 53 . Conclusion Given the interconnectedness of women’s health to the broader Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda, new frameworks are needed to achieve health equity in quality of care. For example, of the 17 SDGs, only one is health related (SDG 3); however, many argue that progress against any and all of the SDGs will be delayed without advancements in related goals, including women’s empowerment, poverty, water and sanitation, and quality education 56 – 58 . The framework proposed in this paper integrates mutually interdependent factors at three levels to explain potential sources of health inequity in quality of care, and can also be used to find solutions and next steps. Overarching determinants of health equity influence health-seeking behaviors, such as community’s experiences of care, expectations and decision to seek care, but also further determine the provision of care within the facility. We propose domains of PCC, and situate PCC not only as a result of provision of care (primarily the structural and clinical aspect in facility environment), but also the process of care that can further enhance the service provision. The Framework can be used to inform future strategies and interventions to improve PCC for women, families, and communities. First, it describes how the facility can be a context in which health inequities can be mitigated, particularly through improving PCC. Specifically, health facilities should deliver care that engages women and family caregivers at all levels of care. There are challenges to engaging certain subgroups of women, including those who are poor and less educated, because of provider-patient power dynamics 59 , language barriers, and low cultural health capital in the health care setting 42 . Efforts to address these barriers are essential to mitigating health inequities. The domains in the Framework may be used as guiding principles for facilities or policies aiming to improve PCC, focusing on dignity and respectful care, autonomy, privacy and confidentiality, improving patient-provider communication, social support throughout care, timely and compassionate care, and ensuring that women are treated equally regardless of social status and socioeconomic background. While the Framework is currently based on women’s experiences during childbirth and receiving family planning services, its domains and guiding principals are likely applicable to other components of reproductive and maternal health care, including, but not limited to, preconception, antenatal, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) care. It is important to note that providers in facilities also need support from policy-makers and health systems to provide high quality maternity care. Providers are also reflective of larger social and economic factors, oftentimes themselves disrespected for being single and/or working, experiencing lack of safety and security in communities, and absent from policy dialogue 55 . All of these factors combined are significant barriers in providing high quality PCC during maternity and reproductive health care 55 . Reorienting health systems to better respond to women’s, as well as providers’, needs and preferences through service delivery points in the community could improve mortality and health outcomes 60 . Future research should test this Framework in multiple settings in order to better understand women’s experiences of care in different contexts. Importantly, further research is also needed to develop culturally appropriate, context-relevant measures that not only address women’s values and backgrounds, but also reflect international guidelines and basic human rights. Additionally, future interventions need to address how gender and economic inequities at the national level may play out in the facility and how health systems may better support not only women, but health workers who are also operating under contexts of social inequities 59 . Across the world, women seek dignity and respect for reproductive health care. Women’s experiences during care need to be visualized in a holistic way, where the parameters to assess and improve the quality of services should not only be restricted to within the facility, but also in broader communities. Adopting a PCC framework directly places women’s values, decision-making, and cultural backgrounds in the center of care. The Framework will be of value in the design and strengthening of service improvements that are responsive to women’s needs and experience. Integrating the components of this Framework with quality improvement processes in LMICs, and also for poor and vulnerable women living in or migrating to high-income countries, has the potential to lead to improved access to and utilization of safe and humane reproductive health services for women. Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1127467]; David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2015-62545]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Kenneth Kong for contributing to designing the conceptual framework figure. Faculty Opinions recommended References 1. WHO: Maternal mortality. WHO. 2015; [cited 2016 Oct 4]. Reference Source 2. Koblinsky M, Chowdhury ME, Moran A, et al. : Maternal morbidity and disability and their consequences: neglected agenda in maternal health. J Health Popul Nutr. 2012; 30 (2): 124–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. Storeng KT, Baggaley RF, Ganaba R, et al. : Paying the price: the cost and consequences of emergency obstetric care in Burkina Faso. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66 (3): 545–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Say L, Raine R: A systematic review of inequalities in the use of maternal health care in developing countries: examining the scale of the problem and the importance of context. Bull World Health Organ. 2007; 85 (10): 812–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, et al. : WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet. 2012; 380 (9846): 1011–29. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Bohren MA, Vogel JP, Hunter EC, et al. : The Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth in Health Facilities Globally: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. PLoS Med. 2015; 12 (6): e1001847. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. The White Ribbon Alliance: Respectful Maternity Care. White Ribbon Alliance. 2013; [cited 2016 Oct 5]. Reference Source 8. ten Hoope-Bender P, de Bernis L, Campbell J, et al. : Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery. Lancet. 2014; 384 (9949): 1226–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 9. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 2001; [cited 2013 Jul 25]. PubMed Abstract 10. Griffin SJ, Kinmonth AL, Veltman MW, et al. : Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2 (6): 595–608. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. RamaRao S, Lacuesta M, Costello M, et al. : The link between quality of care and contraceptive use. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2003; 29 (2): 76–83. PubMed Abstract 12. Dettrick Z, Firth S, Jimenez Soto E: Do strategies to improve quality of maternal and child health care in lower and middle income countries lead to improved outcomes? A review of the evidence. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (12): e83070. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 13. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, et al. : Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 10 : CD003766. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Chauhan SP: Evidence-based labor and delivery management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199 (5): 445–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Bhattacharyya S, Srivastava A, Avan BI: Delivery should happen soon and my pain will be reduced: understanding women’s perception of good delivery care in India. Glob Health Action. 2013; 6 (1): 22635. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. White Ribbon Alliance: White Ribbon Alliance. White Ribbon. 2016. Reference Source 17. Rice N, Robone S, Smith PC: The measurement and comparison of health system responsiveness. HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York; [cited 2013 Jun 20]. Report No.: 08/05. 2008. Reference Source 18. Robone S, Rice N, Smith PC: Health Systems’ Responsiveness and Its Characteristics: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis. Health Serv Res. 2011; 46 (6pt2): 2079–2100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. WHO: The Health Systems Responsiveness Analytical Guidelines for Surveys in the MCSS. WHO. 2005; [cited 2013 Jun 20]. Reference Source 20. van Duong D, Binns CW, Lee AH, et al. : Measuring client-perceived quality of maternity services in rural Vietnam. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004; 16 (6): 447–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Haddad S, Fournier P, Potvin L: Measuring lay people’s perceptions of the quality of primary health care services in developing countries. Validation of a 20-item scale. Int J Qual Health Care. 1998; 10 (2): 93–104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 22. Abuya T, Warren CE, Miller N, et al. : Exploring the Prevalence of Disrespect and Abuse during Childbirth in Kenya. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (4): e0123606. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 23. Bowser D, Hill K: Exploring Evidence for Disrespect and Abuse in Facility-Based Childbirth: Report of a Landscape Analysis | Traction Project. 2010; [cited 2015 Aug 31]. Reference Source 24. Donabedian A: The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988; 260 (12): 1743–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Hulton LA, Matthew Z, Stones RW: A framework for the evaluation of quality care in maternity services. University of Southampton; 2000; [cited 2013 Aug 1]. Reference Source 26. Lawrence HC 3rd, Copel JA, O’Keeffe DF, et al. : Quality patient care in labor and delivery: a call to action. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207 (3): 147–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Srivastava A, Avan BI, Rajbangshi P: Determinants of women’s satisfaction with maternal health care: a review of literature from developing countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15 (1): 97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 28. Tunçalp Ö, Were WM, MacLennan C, et al. : Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns-the WHO vision. BJOG. 2015; 122 (8): 1045–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 29. Bruce J: Fundamental Elements of the Quality of Care: A Simple Framework. Stud Fam Plann. 1990; 21 (2): 61–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 30. Dehlendorf C, Henderson JT, Vittinghoff E, et al. : Association of the quality of interpersonal care during family planning counseling with contraceptive use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215 (1): 78.e1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 31. Bechtel C, Ness DL: If you build it, will they come? Designing truly patient-centered health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29 (5): 914–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 32. Berwick DM: What 'patient-centered' should mean: confessions of an extremist. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28 (4): w555–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 33. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S: The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002; 14 (5): 353–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 34. Tumlinson K, Speizer IS, Curtis SL, et al. : Accuracy of standard measures of family planning service quality: findings from the simulated client method. Stud Fam Plann. 2014; 45 (4): 443–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Kamhawi S, Underwood C, Murad H, et al. : Client-centered counseling improves client satisfaction with family planning visits: evidence from Irbid, Jordan. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013; 1 (2): 180–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 36. Askew I, Mensch B, Adewuyi A: Indicators for measuring the quality of family planning services in Nigeria. Stud Fam Plann. 1994; 25 (5): 268–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 37. Koren MJ: Person-centered care for nursing home residents: the culture-change movement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29 (2): 312–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 38. McCormack B, McCance TV: Development of a framework for person-centred nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2006; 56 (5): 472–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Brownie S, Nancarrow S: Effects of person-centered care on residents and staff in aged-care facilities: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2013; 8 : 1–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 40. Tunçalp Ö, Were WM, MacLennan C, et al. : Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns-the WHO vision. BJOG. 2015; 122 (8): 1045–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 41. Kawachi I, Subramanian SV, Almeida-Filho N: A glossary for health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002; 56 (9): 647–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 42. Dubbin LA, Chang JS, Shim JK: Cultural health capital and the interactional dynamics of patient-centered care. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 93 : 113–120. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 43. Bourdieu P: The Forms of Capital. In: Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education . New York: Greenwood Press; 1986; 241–58. Reference Source 44. Bourdieu P: The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1980. Reference Source 45. Shim JK: Cultural health capital: A theoretical approach to understanding health care interactions and the dynamics of unequal treatment. J Health Soc Behav. 2010; 51 (1): 1–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 46. Thaddeus S, Maine D: Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med. 1994; 38 (8): 1091–110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Gabrysch S, Campbell OM: Still too far to walk: literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009; 9 (1): 34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 48. Afulani PA, Moyer C: Explaining Disparities in Use of Skilled Birth Attendants in Developing Countries: A Conceptual Framework. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (4): e0154110. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 49. Freedman LP, Kruk ME: Disrespect and abuse of women in childbirth: challenging the global quality and accountability agendas. Lancet. 2014; 384 (9948): e42–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 50. Jewkes R, Penn-Kekana L: Mistreatment of Women in Childbirth: Time for Action on This Important Dimension of Violence against Women. PLoS Med. 2015; 12 (6): e1001849. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 51. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Macro International: National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005–06. India: Mumbai: IIPS; 2007; 1 . Reference Source 52. Das P, Basu M, Tikadar T, et al. : Client satisfaction on maternal and child health services in rural bengal. Indian J Community Med. 2010; 35 (4): 478–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 53. Kyomuhendo GB: Low Use of Rural Maternity Services in Uganda: Impact of Women’s Status, Traditional Beliefs and Limited Resources. Reprod Health Matters. 2003; 11 (21): 16–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 54. Srivastava A, Avan BI, Rajbangshi P, et al. : Determinants of women’s satisfaction with maternal health care: a review of literature from developing countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15 : 97. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 55. Filby A, McConville F, Portela A: What Prevents Quality Midwifery Care? A Systematic Mapping of Barriers in Low and Middle Income Countries from the Provider Perspective. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (5): e0153391. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 56. Requejo JH, Bhutta ZA: The post-2015 agenda: staying the course in maternal and child survival. Arch Dis Child. 2015; 100 (Suppl 1): S76–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 57. United Nations: Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. [cited 2016 Oct 4]. Reference Source 58. Norheim OF, Jha P, Admasu K, et al. : Avoiding 40% of the premature deaths in each country, 2010–30: review of national mortality trends to help quantify the UN sustainable development goal for health. Lancet. 2015; 385 (9964): 239–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 59. Andersen HM: “Villagers”: differential treatment in a Ghanaian hospital. Soc Sci Med. 2004; 59 (10): 2003–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 60. World Health Organization: Primary Health Care: Now More Than Ever. WHO. 2008, [cited 2016 Sep 26]. Reference Source Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Nov 2017 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94105, USA 2 Community Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA 3 Public Health Foundation of India, Delhi, 122002, India 4 Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA May Sudhinaraset Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Patience Afulani Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Nadia Diamond-Smith Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Sanghita Bhattacharyya Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing France Donnay Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Dominic Montagu Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Gates Foundation [OPP1127467]; David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2015-62545]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 06 Nov 2017, 1:1 https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12756.1 Copyright © 2017 Sudhinaraset M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads Gates Open Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Sudhinaraset M, Afulani P, Diamond-Smith N et al. Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12756.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Nov 2017 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Warren CE. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26134 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26134 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Jan 2018 Charlotte E Warren , Population Council, Washington, DC, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26134 Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. A very interesting concept and very timely given the increased focus on equity and women’s experience and perceptions of quality of care. The framework definitely does require testing. The domains described ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. A very interesting concept and very timely given the increased focus on equity and women’s experience and perceptions of quality of care. The framework definitely does require testing. The domains described are challenging to measure. This was one of the biggest challenges in the initial studies measuring the prevalence of disrespect and abuse during childbirth… moving from a description to a definition that can be measured. See Freedman et al. 1 I have a few minor comments that should not hold the paper from being indexed. Introduction third paragraph: The authors write: “Communication between women and their provider during prenatal and delivery care strongly determines women’s satisfaction and utilization of services” - What about satisfaction and use of PNC? Although not so common women do access PNC. Introduction 7 th paragraph – the Balanced Counseling Strategy is not a survey tool it is a counseling tool for FP providers. Table 1: Domains and definitions for person-centered care. It would be helpful to use the same language /format for each domain - i.e. “examples include….”. Most of the domains have explicit examples of how they are measured – but for three (dignity, trust and supportive care) are not so clear. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Freedman LP, Ramsey K, Abuya T, Bellows B, et al.: Defining disrespect and abuse of women in childbirth: a research, policy and rights agenda. Bull World Health Organ . 2014; 92 (12): 915-7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Maternal and newborn health, measurement learning and evaluation, community health, frontline healthworkers, health systems strengthening I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Warren CE. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26134 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26134 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Holt K. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26135 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26135 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Jan 2018 Kelsey Holt , Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26135 Many thanks for the opportunity to review this exciting commentary. I have detailed below a number of revisions that I feel would strengthen the paper. I am happy to discuss further with the authors if they are interested. ... Continue reading READ ALL Many thanks for the opportunity to review this exciting commentary. I have detailed below a number of revisions that I feel would strengthen the paper. I am happy to discuss further with the authors if they are interested. Introduction: The article rightfully makes the case for a framework that focuses on reproductive health broadly, not just maternal health, while acknowledging that the framework is based primarily on the MH and FP literature due to the dearth of PCC concepts/frameworks originating in other areas of RH. However, the introduction (and title) still primarily focuses on maternal health. I recommend broadening the intro and justification for the piece by engaging with other areas beyond obstetric care – e.g., a complementary case to the examples from maternal health could be made that person-centered care is particularly important in family planning care given a history of coercive policies and practices that have led to distrust among many communities. Human rights are alluded to in multiple places throughout the article, but a more explicit justification in the Intro section for a focus on PCC from a rights-based standpoint, and not just because of a link to health outcomes or other downstream effects—would strengthen the case. The sentence in the final paragraph of the Intro that states the objective of the framework is a critical sentence and could be more clearly stated; as it stands, “ to develop a framework as it [PCC] relates to improving the quality of RH” is too vague and also doesn’t convey the unique focus on equity Framework: The unique contribution of this framework lies in layering the concept of social/economic drivers of health inequities onto person-centered care concepts. However, despite the focus on equity, the framework itself does not depict the processes described in the text whereby these social/economic factors influence patient experience of care. I recommend more “real estate” in the framework be given to depicting these processes (which are described in the text but not clear in the framework as a standalone reference). This could be done first by fleshing out the influence of the social/economic components not only on health seeking behavior but on the way individuals experience care (e.g., if a person experiences ethnic or class-based discrimination, that would affect not only their likelihood of seeking care—which is already well depicted—but also what type of care they receive when they get there, independent of their health seeking behaviors. Right?). The paragraph on CHC in the article is very strong and it would be great to translate the CHC constructs discussed into the actual framework. Second, it seems that the main outcome of interest that I think the framework is trying to convey, unjust differences in experiences of reproductive healthcare, should be explicitly represented in the framework. These modifications would make the framework an extremely important contribution to the literature. Optionally, two excellent points made in the text could be worked into the framework as well: 1) intergenerational nature of health inequities and 2) the fact that provider constraints in provision of PCC are also impacted by the social/economic determinants (e.g., underpaid/lower class providers are overworked and this influences the care they provide), with a possible citation to the Lancet Commission on Women and Health which also makes this point. Table 1 Table 1 is a helpful addition to the literature and could be further strengthened by adding citations to connect each construct with the literature authors reviewed and summarized in the text of the paper Along the lines of making the paper less MH-specific, a nod to the seminal Bruce quality framework from FP could be added at some point in the Table (perhaps in the communication construct) to diversify the examples Trust construct: “assess their care with providers” feels somewhat too general – consider rewording to be more specific to trust Other comments/suggestions: On page 4, a clearer transition could be made at the beginning of the “Grounding person-centered care in existing frameworks and theory” section to link it with the prior and make clear how the resources described in this section differ from the ones reviewed in the prior section The first paragraph of the Conclusion section could use work to make a stronger case for the importance of the framework. The connection with the SDGs is unclear, and the final sentence describing the framework is also unclear to me. Additional resources that could be engaged with/cited in the paper: Dennis, A., Blanchard, K., & Bessenaar, T. (2017) 1 Harris S, et al. (2016) 2 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Dennis A, Blanchard K, Bessenaar T: Identifying indicators for quality abortion care: a systematic literature review. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care . 2017; 43 (1): 7-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Reichenbach L, Hardee K, Harris S: Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences?. Open Access Journal of Contraception . 2016. Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Quality of reproductive health care I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Holt K. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26135 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26135 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Chaturvedi S. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26040 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26040 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Dec 2017 Sarika Chaturvedi , Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26040 This is an interesting and relevant work. The proposed framework is comprehensive and appropriately builds on existing literature. I have the following comments on the manuscript: Although the authors present ... Continue reading READ ALL This is an interesting and relevant work. The proposed framework is comprehensive and appropriately builds on existing literature. I have the following comments on the manuscript: Although the authors present several determinants of equity, I find that the framework misses affordability aspect. Afford ability of care strongly impacts decisions to seek care and also the type or level of care sought. It would be more appropriate to include this aspect more explicitly in the proposed framework. Accountability is another important determinant that does not appear in the proposed framework. Accountability to users can influence experience of care as well as provision of care, including functional quality of care. In my view, a framework for equity would be incomplete without alluding to accountability to users. The authors switch between quality of reproductive care and maternity care. It would be useful to be specific and consistent. It is not clear what the authors mean by 'integrated care'. It would be useful to clarify this. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Chaturvedi S. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26040 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26040 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: ten Hoope-Bender P. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26042 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26042 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Nov 2017 Petra ten Hoope-Bender , Technical Adviser Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Geneva, Switzerland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26042 Very interesting and timely article. Would suggest a few clarifications and inclusion of some aspects of compassion and empowerment, just to open space for a fuller discussion in a next paper. The touch upon Cultural Health Capital is both interesting and ... Continue reading READ ALL Very interesting and timely article. Would suggest a few clarifications and inclusion of some aspects of compassion and empowerment, just to open space for a fuller discussion in a next paper. The touch upon Cultural Health Capital is both interesting and promising for a deeper delve in a possible future article. The PCC Framework makes sense, but needs to be tried and tested to show it really addresses and captures all the important aspects of PCC. In addition, a health system 'return on investment' case study for PCC would make a big difference in helping countries use the Framework as a guiding tool for service improvement or development. Please click here to download a PDF of the article with my detailed comments. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sexual and reproductive health and rights, maternal and newborn health and its workforce I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT ten Hoope-Bender P. Reviewer Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26042 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26042 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Nov 2017 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 1 06 Nov 17 read read read read Petra ten Hoope-Bender , United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Geneva, Switzerland Sarika Chaturvedi , Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, India Kelsey Holt , University of California, San Francisco, USA; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA Charlotte E Warren , Population Council, Washington, USA Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2018 Warren C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Jan 2018 | for Version 1 Charlotte E Warren , Population Council, Washington, DC, USA 0 Views copyright © 2018 Warren C. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. A very interesting concept and very timely given the increased focus on equity and women’s experience and perceptions of quality of care. The framework definitely does require testing. The domains described are challenging to measure. This was one of the biggest challenges in the initial studies measuring the prevalence of disrespect and abuse during childbirth… moving from a description to a definition that can be measured. See Freedman et al. 1 I have a few minor comments that should not hold the paper from being indexed. Introduction third paragraph: The authors write: “Communication between women and their provider during prenatal and delivery care strongly determines women’s satisfaction and utilization of services” - What about satisfaction and use of PNC? Although not so common women do access PNC. Introduction 7 th paragraph – the Balanced Counseling Strategy is not a survey tool it is a counseling tool for FP providers. Table 1: Domains and definitions for person-centered care. It would be helpful to use the same language /format for each domain - i.e. “examples include….”. Most of the domains have explicit examples of how they are measured – but for three (dignity, trust and supportive care) are not so clear. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Freedman LP, Ramsey K, Abuya T, Bellows B, et al.: Defining disrespect and abuse of women in childbirth: a research, policy and rights agenda. Bull World Health Organ . 2014; 92 (12): 915-7 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Maternal and newborn health, measurement learning and evaluation, community health, frontline healthworkers, health systems strengthening I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Warren CE. Peer Review Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26134) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26134 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2018 Holt K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Jan 2018 | for Version 1 Kelsey Holt , Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA 0 Views copyright © 2018 Holt K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Many thanks for the opportunity to review this exciting commentary. I have detailed below a number of revisions that I feel would strengthen the paper. I am happy to discuss further with the authors if they are interested. Introduction: The article rightfully makes the case for a framework that focuses on reproductive health broadly, not just maternal health, while acknowledging that the framework is based primarily on the MH and FP literature due to the dearth of PCC concepts/frameworks originating in other areas of RH. However, the introduction (and title) still primarily focuses on maternal health. I recommend broadening the intro and justification for the piece by engaging with other areas beyond obstetric care – e.g., a complementary case to the examples from maternal health could be made that person-centered care is particularly important in family planning care given a history of coercive policies and practices that have led to distrust among many communities. Human rights are alluded to in multiple places throughout the article, but a more explicit justification in the Intro section for a focus on PCC from a rights-based standpoint, and not just because of a link to health outcomes or other downstream effects—would strengthen the case. The sentence in the final paragraph of the Intro that states the objective of the framework is a critical sentence and could be more clearly stated; as it stands, “ to develop a framework as it [PCC] relates to improving the quality of RH” is too vague and also doesn’t convey the unique focus on equity Framework: The unique contribution of this framework lies in layering the concept of social/economic drivers of health inequities onto person-centered care concepts. However, despite the focus on equity, the framework itself does not depict the processes described in the text whereby these social/economic factors influence patient experience of care. I recommend more “real estate” in the framework be given to depicting these processes (which are described in the text but not clear in the framework as a standalone reference). This could be done first by fleshing out the influence of the social/economic components not only on health seeking behavior but on the way individuals experience care (e.g., if a person experiences ethnic or class-based discrimination, that would affect not only their likelihood of seeking care—which is already well depicted—but also what type of care they receive when they get there, independent of their health seeking behaviors. Right?). The paragraph on CHC in the article is very strong and it would be great to translate the CHC constructs discussed into the actual framework. Second, it seems that the main outcome of interest that I think the framework is trying to convey, unjust differences in experiences of reproductive healthcare, should be explicitly represented in the framework. These modifications would make the framework an extremely important contribution to the literature. Optionally, two excellent points made in the text could be worked into the framework as well: 1) intergenerational nature of health inequities and 2) the fact that provider constraints in provision of PCC are also impacted by the social/economic determinants (e.g., underpaid/lower class providers are overworked and this influences the care they provide), with a possible citation to the Lancet Commission on Women and Health which also makes this point. Table 1 Table 1 is a helpful addition to the literature and could be further strengthened by adding citations to connect each construct with the literature authors reviewed and summarized in the text of the paper Along the lines of making the paper less MH-specific, a nod to the seminal Bruce quality framework from FP could be added at some point in the Table (perhaps in the communication construct) to diversify the examples Trust construct: “assess their care with providers” feels somewhat too general – consider rewording to be more specific to trust Other comments/suggestions: On page 4, a clearer transition could be made at the beginning of the “Grounding person-centered care in existing frameworks and theory” section to link it with the prior and make clear how the resources described in this section differ from the ones reviewed in the prior section The first paragraph of the Conclusion section could use work to make a stronger case for the importance of the framework. The connection with the SDGs is unclear, and the final sentence describing the framework is also unclear to me. Additional resources that could be engaged with/cited in the paper: Dennis, A., Blanchard, K., & Bessenaar, T. (2017) 1 Harris S, et al. (2016) 2 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Dennis A, Blanchard K, Bessenaar T: Identifying indicators for quality abortion care: a systematic literature review. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care . 2017; 43 (1): 7-15 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 2. Reichenbach L, Hardee K, Harris S: Measuring and monitoring quality of care in family planning: are we ignoring negative experiences?. Open Access Journal of Contraception . 2016. Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Quality of reproductive health care I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Holt K. Peer Review Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26135) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26135 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2017 Chaturvedi S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Dec 2017 | for Version 1 Sarika Chaturvedi , Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Savitribai Phule Pune University, Pune, India 0 Views copyright © 2017 Chaturvedi S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is an interesting and relevant work. The proposed framework is comprehensive and appropriately builds on existing literature. I have the following comments on the manuscript: Although the authors present several determinants of equity, I find that the framework misses affordability aspect. Afford ability of care strongly impacts decisions to seek care and also the type or level of care sought. It would be more appropriate to include this aspect more explicitly in the proposed framework. Accountability is another important determinant that does not appear in the proposed framework. Accountability to users can influence experience of care as well as provision of care, including functional quality of care. In my view, a framework for equity would be incomplete without alluding to accountability to users. The authors switch between quality of reproductive care and maternity care. It would be useful to be specific and consistent. It is not clear what the authors mean by 'integrated care'. It would be useful to clarify this. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Chaturvedi S. Peer Review Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26040) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26040 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2017 ten Hoope-Bender P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Nov 2017 | for Version 1 Petra ten Hoope-Bender , Technical Adviser Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Geneva, Switzerland 0 Views copyright © 2017 ten Hoope-Bender P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Very interesting and timely article. Would suggest a few clarifications and inclusion of some aspects of compassion and empowerment, just to open space for a fuller discussion in a next paper. The touch upon Cultural Health Capital is both interesting and promising for a deeper delve in a possible future article. The PCC Framework makes sense, but needs to be tried and tested to show it really addresses and captures all the important aspects of PCC. In addition, a health system 'return on investment' case study for PCC would make a big difference in helping countries use the Framework as a guiding tool for service improvement or development. Please click here to download a PDF of the article with my detailed comments. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sexual and reproductive health and rights, maternal and newborn health and its workforce I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) ten Hoope-Bender P. Peer Review Report For: Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality: The Person-Centered Care Framework for Reproductive Health Equity [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . Gates Open Res 2017, 1 :1 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.13816.r26042) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1#referee-response-26042 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with Gates Open Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Sudhinaraset M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1", templates : { twitter : "Advancing a conceptual model to improve maternal health quality:.... Sudhinaraset M et al., published by " + "Gates Open Research" + ", https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/1-1/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/12756/13816") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "13816"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "26128": 0, "26129": 0, "26134": 34, "26135": 33, "26136": 0, "26040": 39, "26041": 0, "26137": 0, "26042": 47, "26043": 0, "26044": 0, "26045": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "f68a8a12-fff5-4c1b-8d5e-36e9eece0874"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); Are you a Gates-funded researcher? If you are a previous or current Gates grant holder, sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from Gates Open Research. First Name * You must provide your first name Last Name * You must provide your last name Email * You must provide a valid email address Institution You must provide an institution. Submit Thank you! We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to Gates Open Research Gates Open Research Browse Gateways How to Publish About Contact Legal For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit via VeriXiv © F1000 Research Limited and its licensors ISSN 2572-4754 var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "gates", displayName: "Gates Open Research", hostName: "gatesopenresearch.org", id: "3", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });