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

Barriers and enablers to reporting pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Risks of neonatal death, stillbirth and miscarriage are highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where data has most gaps and estimates rely on household surveys, dependent on women reporting these events. Underreporting of pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) is common, but few studies have investigated barriers to reporting these in LMICs. The EN-INDEPTH multi-country study applied qualitative approaches to explore barriers and enablers to reporting pregnancy and APOs in surveys, including individual, community, cultural and interview level factors. METHODS: The study was conducted in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Uganda, Bangladesh and Ghana. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, 28 focus group discussions were conducted with 82 EN-INDEPTH survey interviewers and supervisors and 172 women between February and August 2018. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook. RESULTS: Survey interview processes influenced reporting of pregnancy and APOs. Women found questions about APOs intrusive and of unclear relevance. Across all sites, sociocultural and spiritual beliefs were major barriers to women reporting pregnancy, due to fear that harm would come to their baby. We identified several factors affecting reporting of APOs including reluctance to speak about sad memories and variation in recognition of the baby's value, especially for APOs at earlier gestation. Overlaps in local understanding and terminology for APOs may also contribute to misreporting, for example between miscarriages and stillbirths. Interviewers' skills and training were the keys to enabling respondents to open up, as was privacy during interviews. CONCLUSION: Sociocultural beliefs and psycho-social impacts of APOs play a large part in underreporting these events. Interviewers' skills, careful tool development and translation are the keys to obtaining accurate information. Reporting could be improved with clearer explanations of survey purpose and benefits to respondents and enhanced interviewer training on probing, building rapport and empathy

“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

Randomised comparison of two household survey modules for measuring stillbirths and neonatal deaths in five countries: the Every Newborn-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 5·1 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur annually. Household surveys, most notably the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), run in more than 90 countries and are the main data source from the highest burden regions, but data-quality concerns remain. We aimed to compare two questionnaires: a full birth history module with additional questions on pregnancy losses (FBH+; the current DHS standard) and a full pregnancy history module (FPH), which collects information on all livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and neonatal deaths. METHODS: Women residing in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites within the INDEPTH Network (Bandim in Guinea-Bissau, Dabat in Ethiopia, IgangaMayuge in Uganda, Matlab in Bangladesh, and Kintampo in Ghana) were randomly assigned (individually) to be interviewed using either FBH+ or FPH between July 28, 2017, and Aug 13, 2018. The primary outcomes were stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the 5 years before the survey interview (measured by stillbirth rate [SBR] and neonatal mortality rate [NMR]) and mean time taken to complete the maternity history section of the questionnaire. We also assessed between-site heterogeneity. This study is registered with the Research Registry, 4720. FINDINGS: 69 176 women were allocated to be interviewed by either FBH+ (n=34 805) or FPH (n=34 371). The mean time taken to complete FPH (10·5 min) was longer than for FBH+ (9·1 min; p<0·0001). Using FPH, the estimated SBR was 17·4 per 1000 total births, 21% (95% CI -10 to 62) higher than with FBH+ (15·2 per 1000 total births; p=0·20) in the 5 years preceding the survey interview. There was strong evidence of between-site heterogeneity (I2=80·9%; p<0·0001), with SBR higher for FPH than for FBH+ in four of five sites. The estimated NMR did not differ between modules (FPH 25·1 per 1000 livebirths vs FBH+ 25·4 per 1000 livebirths), with no evidence of between-site heterogeneity (I2=0·7%; p=0·40). INTERPRETATION: FPH takes an average of 1·4 min longer to complete than does FBH+, but has the potential to increase reporting of stillbirths in high burden contexts. The between-site heterogeneity we found might reflect variations in interviewer training and survey implementation, emphasising the importance of interviewer skills, training, and consistent implementation in data quality. FUNDING: Children's Investment Fund Foundation