Trends and risk factors of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in Eastern Uganda (1982-2011): a cross-sectional, population-based study.

: To identify mortality trends and risk factors associated with stillbirths and neonatal deaths 1982-2011. : Population-based cross-sectional study based on reported pregnancy history in Iganga-Mayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance Site (HDSS) in Uganda. A pregnancy history survey was conducted among women aged 15-49 years living in the HDSS during May-July 2011 (n = 10 540). Time trends were analysed with cubic splines and linear regression. Potential risk factors were examined with multilevel logistic regression with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). : 34 073 births from 1982 to 2011 were analysed. The annual rate of decrease was 0.9% for stillbirths and 1.8% for neonatal mortality. Stillbirths were associated with several risk factors: multiple births (AOR 2.57, CI 1.66-3.99), previous adverse outcome (AOR 6.16, CI 4.26-8.88) and grand multiparity among 35- to 49-year-olds (AOR 1.97, CI 1.32-2.89). Neonatal deaths were associated with multiple births (AOR 6.16, CI 4.80-7.92) and advanced maternal age linked with parity of 1-4 (AOR 2.34, CI 1.28-4.25) and grand multiparity (AOR 1.44, CI 1.09-1.90). Education, marital status and household wealth were not associated with the outcomes. : The slow decline in mortality rates and easily identifiable risk factors calls for improving quality of care at birth and a rethinking of how to address obstetric risks, potentially a revival of the risk approach in antenatal care.<br/

Neonatal and child mortality data in retrospective population-based surveys compared with prospective demographic surveillance: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Global mortality estimates remain heavily dependent on household surveys in low- and middle-income countries, where most under-five deaths occur. Few studies have assessed the accuracy of mortality data or determinants of capturing births in surveys. METHODS: The Every Newborn-INDEPTH study (EN-INDEPTH) included a large, multi-country survey of women aged 15-49 interviewed about livebirths and their survival status in five Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSSs). The HDSSs undertake regular household visits to register births and deaths for a given population. We analysed EN-INDEPTH survey data to assess background factors associated with not recalling a complete date-of-birth. We calculated Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for both survey and HDSS data and describe age-at-death distributions during the past 5 years for children born to the same women. We assessed the proportion of HDSS-births that could be matched on month-of-birth to survey-births and used regression models to identify factors associated with matching. RESULTS: 69,176 women interviewed in the survey reported 109,817 births and 3064 deaths in children under 5 years in the 5 years prior to the survey. In the HDSS data, the same women had 83,768 registered births and 2335 under-five deaths in the same period. A complete date-of-birth was not reported for 1-7% of survey-births. Birthdates were less likely to be complete for dead children and children born to women of higher parity or with little/no education. Distributions of reported age-at-death indicated heaping at full weeks (neonatal period) and at 12 months. Heaping was more pronounced in the survey data. Survey estimates of under-five mortality rates were similar to HDSS estimates of under-five mortality in two of five sites, higher in the survey in two sites (15%, 41%) and lower (24%) in one site. The proportion of HDSS-births matched to survey-births ranged from 51 to 89% across HDSSs and births of children who had died were less likely to be matched. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality estimates in the survey and HDSS were not markedly different for most sites. However, neither source is a "gold standard" and both sources miss some events. Research is required to improve capture and accuracy to better track newborn and child survival targets

Stillbirth maternity care measurement and associated factors in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Household surveys remain important sources of maternal and child health data, but until now, standard surveys such as Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) have not collected information on maternity care for women who have experienced a stillbirth. Thus, nationally representative data are lacking to inform programmes to address the millions of stillbirths which occur annually. METHODS: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of women of reproductive age was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017-2018). All women answered a full birth history with additional questions on pregnancy losses (FBH+) or full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample, including all women reporting a recent stillbirth or neonatal death, was asked additional maternity care questions. These were evaluated using descriptive measures. Associations between stillbirth and maternal socio-demographic characteristics, babies' characteristics and maternity care use were assessed using a weighted logistic regression model for women in the FBH+ group. RESULTS: A total of 15,591 women reporting a birth since 1 January 2012 answered maternity care questions. Completeness was very high (> 99%), with similar proportions of responses for both live and stillbirths. Amongst the 14,991 births in the FBH+ group, poorer wealth status, higher parity, large perceived baby size-at-birth, preterm or post-term birth, birth in a government hospital compared to other locations and vaginal birth were associated with increased risk of stillbirth after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Regarding association with reported postnatal care, women with a stillbirth were more likely to report hospital stays of > 1 day. However, women with a stillbirth were less likely to report having received a postnatal check compared to those with a live birth. CONCLUSIONS: Women who had experienced stillbirth were able to respond to questions about pregnancy and birth, and we found no reason to omit questions to these women in household surveys. Our analysis identified several potentially modifiable factors associated with stillbirth, adding to the evidence-base for policy and action in low- and middle-income contexts. Including these questions in DHS-8 would lead to increased availability of population-level data to inform action to end preventable stillbirths

Gestational age data completeness, quality and validity in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (gestational age (GA) <37 weeks) is the leading cause of child mortality worldwide. However, GA is rarely assessed in population-based surveys, the major data source in low/middle-income countries. We examined the performance of new questions to measure GA in household surveys, a subset of which had linked early pregnancy ultrasound GA data. METHODS: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of 69,176 women was undertaken (2017-2018) in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda. We included questions regarding GA in months (GAm) for all women and GA in weeks (GAw) for a subset; we also asked if the baby was 'born before expected' to estimate preterm birth rates. Survey data were linked to surveillance data in two sites, and to ultrasound pregnancy dating at <24 weeks in one site. We assessed completeness and quality of reported GA. We examined the validity of estimated preterm birth rates by sensitivity and specificity, over/under-reporting of GAw in survey compared to ultrasound by multinomial logistic regression, and explored perceptions about GA and barriers and enablers to its reporting using focus group discussions (n = 29). RESULTS: GAm questions were almost universally answered, but heaping on 9 months resulted in underestimation of preterm birth rates. Preference for reporting GAw in even numbers was evident, resulting in heaping at 36 weeks; hence, over-estimating preterm birth rates, except in Matlab where the peak was at 38 weeks. Questions regarding 'born before expected' were answered but gave implausibly low preterm birth rates in most sites. Applying ultrasound as the gold standard in Matlab site, sensitivity of survey-GAw for detecting preterm birth (GAw <37) was 60% and specificity was 93%. Focus group findings suggest that women perceive GA to be important, but usually counted in months. Antenatal care attendance, women's education and health cards may improve reporting. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published study assessing GA reporting in surveys, compared with the gold standard of ultrasound. Reporting GAw within 5 years' recall is feasible with high completeness, but accuracy is affected by heaping. Compared to ultrasound-GAw, results are reasonably specific, but sensitivity needs to be improved. We propose revised questions based on the study findings for further testing and validation in settings where pregnancy ultrasound data and/or last menstrual period dates/GA recorded in pregnancy are available. Specific training of interviewers is recommended

Birthweight data completeness and quality in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Low birthweight (< 2500 g) is an important marker of maternal health and is associated with neonatal mortality, long-term development and chronic diseases. Household surveys remain an important source of population-based birthweight information, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS); however, data quality concerns remain. Few studies have addressed how to close these gaps in surveys. METHODS: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of 69,176 women was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites (Matlab-Bangladesh, Dabat-Ethiopia, Kintampo-Ghana, Bandim-Guinea-Bissau, IgangaMayuge-Uganda). Responses to existing DHS/MICS birthweight questions on 14,411 livebirths were analysed and estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) associated with reporting weighing, birthweight and heaping reported. Twenty-eight focus group discussions with women and interviewers explored barriers and enablers to reporting birthweight. RESULTS: Almost all women provided responses to birthweight survey questions, taking on average 0.2 min to answer. Of all babies, 62.4% were weighed at birth, 53.8% reported birthweight and 21.1% provided health cards with recorded birthweight. High levels of heterogeneity were observed between sites. Home births and neonatal deaths were less likely to be weighed at birth (home births aOR 0.03(95%CI 0.02-0.03), neonatal deaths (aOR 0.19(95%CI 0.16-0.24)), and when weighed, actual birthweight was less likely to be known (aOR 0.44(95%CI 0.33-0.58), aOR 0.30(95%CI 0.22-0.41)) compared to facility births and post-neonatal survivors. Increased levels of maternal education were associated with increases in reporting weighing and knowing birthweight. Half of recorded birthweights were heaped on multiples of 500 g. Heaping was more common in IgangaMayuge (aOR 14.91(95%CI 11.37-19.55) and Dabat (aOR 14.25(95%CI 10.13-20.3) compared to Bandim. Recalled birthweights were more heaped than those recorded by card (aOR 2.59(95%CI 2.11-3.19)). A gap analysis showed large missed opportunity between facility birth and known birthweight, especially for neonatal deaths. Qualitative data suggested that knowing their baby's weight was perceived as valuable by women in all sites, but lack of measurement and poor communication, alongside social perceptions and spiritual beliefs surrounding birthweight, impacted women's ability to report birthweight. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial data gaps remain for birthweight data in household surveys, even amongst facility births. Improving the accuracy and recording of birthweights, and better communication with women, for example using health cards, could improve survey birthweight data availability and quality

Counting stillbirths and COVID 19-there has never been a more urgent time.

International audienceNo abstract availabl

Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Household surveys remain important sources of stillbirth data, but omission and misclassification are common. Classifying adverse pregnancy outcomes as stillbirths requires accurate reporting of vital status at birth and gestational age or birthweight for every pregnancy. Further categorisation, e.g. by sex, or timing (intrapartum/antepartum) improves data to understand and prevent stillbirth. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional population-based survey of women of reproductive age in five health and demographic surveillance system sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017-2018). All women answered a full birth history with pregnancy loss questions (FBH+) or a full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample across both groups were asked additional stillbirth questions. Questions were evaluated using descriptive measures. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, focus group discussions with women exploring barriers to reporting birthweight for stillbirths were conducted. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook. RESULTS: Overall 69,176 women reported 98,483 livebirths (FBH+) and 102,873 pregnancies (FPH). Additional questions were asked for 1453 stillbirths, 1528 neonatal deaths and 12,620 surviving children born in the 5 years prior to the survey. Completeness was high (> 99%) for existing FBH+/FPH questions on signs of life at birth and gestational age (months). Discordant responses in signs of life at birth between different questions were common; nearly one-quarter classified as stillbirths on FBH+/FPH were reported born alive on additional questions. Availability of information on gestational age (weeks) (58.1%) and birthweight (13.2%) was low amongst stillbirths, and heaping was common. Most women (93.9%) were able to report the sex of their stillborn baby. Response completeness for stillbirth timing (18.3-95.1%) and estimated proportion intrapartum (15.6-90.0%) varied by question and site. Congenital malformations were reported in 3.1% stillbirths. Perceived value in weighing a stillborn baby varied and barriers to weighing at birth a nd knowing birthweight were common. CONCLUSIONS: Improving stillbirth data in surveys will require investment in improving the measurement of vital status, gestational age and birthweight by healthcare providers, communication of these with women, and overcoming reporting barriers. Given the large burden and effect on families, improved data must be made available to end preventable stillbirths

What is the Role of Community Capabilities for Maternal Health? An Exploration of Community Capabilities as Determinants to Institutional Deliveries in Bangladesh, India, and Uganda

Background: While community capabilities are recognized as important factors in developing resilient health systems and communities, appropriate metrics for these have not yet been developed. Furthermore, the role of community capabilities on access to maternal health services has been underexplored. In this paper, we summarize the development of a community capability score based on the Future Health System (FHS) project’s experience in Bangladesh, India, and Uganda, and, examine the role of community capabilities as determinants of institutional delivery in these three contexts. Methods: We developed a community capability score using a pooled dataset containing cross-sectional household survey data from Bangladesh, India, and Uganda. Our main outcome of interest was whether the woman delivered in an institution. Our predictor variables included the community capability score, as well as a series of previously identified determinants of maternal health. We calculate both population-averaged effects (using GEE logistic regression), as well as sub-national level effects (using a mixed effects model). Results: Our final sample for analysis included 2775 women, of which 1238 were from Bangladesh, 1199 from India, and 338 from Uganda. We found that individual-level determinants of institutional deliveries, such as maternal education, parity, and ante-natal care access were significant in our analysis and had a strong impact on a woman’s odds of delivering in an institution. We also found that, in addition to individual-level determinants, greater community capability was significantly associated with higher odds of institutional delivery. For every additional capability, the odds of institutional delivery would increase by up to almost 6 %. Conclusion: Individual-level characteristics are strong determinants of whether a woman delivered in an institution. However, we found that community capability also plays an important role, and should be taken into account when designing programs and interventions to support institutional deliveries. Consideration of individual factors and the capabilities of the communities in which people live would contribute to the vision of supporting people-centered approaches to health

“Every Newborn-INDEPTH” (EN-INDEPTH) study protocol for a randomised comparison of household survey modules for measuring stillbirths and neonatal deaths in five Health and Demographic Surveillance sites

Background: Under-five and maternal mortality were halved in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) era, with slower reductions for 2.6 million neonatal deaths and 2.6 million stillbirths. The Every Newborn Action Plan aims to accelerate progress towards national targets, and includes an ambitious Measurement Improvement Roadmap. Population-based household surveys, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, are major sources of population-level data on child mortality in countries with weaker civil registration and vital statistics systems, where over two-thirds of global child deaths occur. To estimate neonatal/child mortality and pregnancy outcomes (stillbirths, miscarriages, birthweight, gestational age) the most common direct methods are: (1) the standard DHS-7 with Full Birth History with additional questions on pregnancy losses in the past 5 years (FBH+) or (2) a Full Pregnancy History (FPH). No direct comparison of these two methods has been undertaken, although descriptive analyses suggest that the FBH+ may underestimate mortality rates particularly for stillbirths. Methods: This is the protocol paper for the Every Newborn-INDEPTH study (INDEPTH Network, International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and their Health Every Newborn, Every Newborn Action Plan), aiming to undertake a randomised comparison of FBH+ and FPH to measure pregnancy outcomes in a household survey in five selected INDEPTH Network sites in Africa and South Asia (Bandim in urban and rural Guinea-Bissau; Dabat in Ethiopia; IgangaMayuge in Uganda; Kintampo in Ghana; Matlab in Bangladesh). The survey will reach >68 000 pregnancies to assess if there is ≥15% difference in stillbirth rates. Additional questions will capture birthweight, gestational age, birth/death certification, termination of pregnancy and fertility intentions. The World Bank's Survey Solutions platform will be tailored for data collection, including recording paradata to evaluate timing. A mixed methods assessment of barriers and enablers to reporting of pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes will be undertaken. Conclusions: This large-scale study is the first randomised comparison of these two methods to capture pregnancy outcomes. Results are expected to inform the evidence base for survey methodology, especially in DHS, regarding capture of stillbirths and other outcomes, notably neonatal deaths, abortions (spontaneous and induced), birthweight and gestational age. In addition, this study will inform strategies to improve health and demographic surveillance capture of neonatal/child mortality and pregnancy outcomes.Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF

Measurement of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in standardised population-based surveys

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, 4.4 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths (SB&NND) are estimated to occur annually. Household surveys, notably the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), are an important source of SB&NND data. This PhD aimed to review the DHS’s evolution for SB&NND data capture and compare the full birth history with additional questions on pregnancy losses (FBH+) and full pregnancy history (FPH) approaches in terms of data quality and potential measurement errors. METHODS: A literature and programmatic review of the DHS programme and HDSS pregnancy surveillance system was conducted. A randomised comparison of FBH+ versus FPH modules (the EveryNewborn-INDEPTH (EN-INDEPTH) survey) was undertaken in five health and demographic surveillance sites (HDSS). Reported stillbirth rates (SBR) and neonatal mortality rates (NMR); time for completion of survey modules; evidence for heterogeneity between sites; patterns of corrections between question types and structures, and modules were assessed. Survey data were compared to and HDSS data in four sites. RESULTS: Both FPH and FBH+ modules have been used within the DHS programme, but there is limited evidence concerning their accuracy for SB&NND. The FBH+ was the core model questionnaire between DHS-phases I-VII. A total of 69,176 women consented. 34,805 (50·3%) were randomised to FBH+ and 34,371 (49·7%) to FPH. There was little difference between the average time to administer questions in FBH+ (9.1 minutes) and FPH (10.5 minutes). The SBR was 15.2/1000 and 17.4/1000 total births for FBH+ and FPH, respectively. SBR was 21% (95% CI (-10% - 62%)) higher in FPH than in FBH+ with strong evidence of heterogeneity across the sites (I-squared=80·9% (p<0.001)). The NMR was similar in FPH (25.1/1000 births) and FBH+ (25.4/1000 births) with no evidence of heterogeneity between the sites (I-squared=0.0% (p=0.48)). Corrections were similar by survey module and occurred in 84% of survey interviews. Single corrections were the most common, multiple-select, and free-text questions increased response time by two minutes on average and had the most corrections. Pregnancy surveillance systems differed between sites (frequency of surveillance visits, main respondent reporting pregnancy outcomes, pregnancy testing, and data capture and surveillance modes). In three of the four sites, both arms of the EN-INDEPTH survey reported more pregnancies than the HDSS Matlab being the exception. Overall, the survey data produced higher estimated SBRs (FBH+: RR=1.13, 95%CI (0.79, 1.63), p=0.519; FPH: RR=1.20, 95%CI (0.76, 1.90), p=0.444) and NMRs (FBH+: RR=1.19, 95%CI (0.98, 1.43), p=0.071; FPH: RR=1.15, 95%CI (1.01, 1.30), p=0.030) than the HDSS data. In Matlab, the HDSS recorded more stillbirths and miscarriages than the survey in the FPH arm only. In Kintampo, the HDSS recorded more stillbirths than the survey, even though the HDSS recorded fewer pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this PhD of improved capture of stillbirths using the FPH influenced the DHS’s switch to the FPH module in its eighth phase; however, limited evidence concerning SB&NND data accuracy and quality in standardised surveys is available. Therefore, additional efforts towards improved survey implementation of the FPH approach, including training, interviewer prompts, translations, and developing and testing standard data quality criteria for SB&NND in surveys and routine data, are warranted