Although qualitative studies have raised attention to humiliating treatment of women during labour and delivery, there are no reliable estimates of the prevalence of disrespectful and abusive treatment in health facilities. We measured the frequency of reported abusive experiences during facility childbirth in eight health facilities in Tanzania and examined associated factors. The study was conducted in rural northeastern Tanzania. Using a structured questionnaire, we interviewed women who had delivered in health facilities upon discharge and re-interviewed a randomly selected subset 5-10 weeks later in the community. We calculated frequencies of 14 abusive experiences and the prevalence of any disrespect/abuse. We performed logistic regression to analyse associations between abusive treatment and individual and birth experience characteristics. A total of 1779 women participated in the exit survey (70.6% response rate) and 593 were re-interviewed at home (75.8% response rate). The frequency of any abusive or disrespectful treatment during childbirth was 343 (19.48%) in the exit sample and 167 (28.21%) in the follow-up sample; the difference may be due to courtesy bias in exit interviews. The most common events reported on follow-up were being ignored (N = 84, 14.24%), being shouted at (N = 78, 13.18%) and receiving negative or threatening comments (N = 68, 11.54%). Thirty women (5.1%) were slapped or pinched and 31 women (5.31%) delivered alone. In the follow-up sample women with secondary education were more likely to report abusive treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.98), as were poor women (OR 1.80, CI: 1.31-2.47) and women with self-reported depression in the previous year (OR 1.62, CI: 1.23-2.14). Between 19% and 28% of women in eight facilities in northeastern Tanzania experienced disrespectful and/or abusive treatment from health providers during childbirth. This is a health system crisis that requires urgent solutions both to ensure women's right to dignity in health care and to improve effective utilization of facilities for childbirth in order to reduce maternal mortality.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundSeveral recent studies have attempted to measure the prevalence of disrespect and abuse (D&A) of women during childbirth in health facilities. Variations in reported prevalence may be associated with differences in study instruments and data collection methods. This systematic review and comparative analysis of methods aims to aggregate and present lessons learned from published studies that quantified the prevalence of Disrespect and Abuse (D&A) during childbirth.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Five papers met criteria and were included for analysis. We developed an analytical framework depicting the basic elements of epidemiological methodology in prevalence studies and a table of common types of systematic error associated with each of them. We performed a head-to-head comparison of study methods for all five papers. Using these tools, an independent reviewer provided an analysis of the potential for systematic error in the reported prevalence estimates.ResultsSampling techniques, eligibility criteria, categories of D&A selected for study, operational definitions of D&A, summary measures of D&A, and the mode, timing, and setting of data collection all varied in the five studies included in the review. These variations present opportunities for the introduction of biases – in particular selection, courtesy, and recall bias – and challenge the ability to draw comparisons across the studies’ results.ConclusionOur review underscores the need for caution in interpreting or comparing previously reported prevalence estimates of D&A during facility-based childbirth. The lack of standardized definitions, instruments, and study methods used to date in studies designed to quantify D&A in childbirth facilities introduced the potential for systematic error in reported prevalence estimates, and affected their generalizability and comparability. Chief among the lessons to emerge from comparing methods for measuring the prevalence of D&A is recognition of the tension between seeking prevalence measures that are reliable and generalizable, and attempting to avoid loss of validity in the context where the issue is being studied.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-017-0389-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.