BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200.
BACKGROUND: Oxytocin and prostaglandin are hormones responsible for uterine contraction during the third stage of labour. Receptors in the uterine muscles are stimulated by exogenous or endogenous oxytocin leading to uterine contractions. Nipple stimulation or breastfeeding are stimuli that can lead to the secretion of oxytocin and consequent uterine contractions. Consequently, uterine contractions can reduce bleeding during the third stage of labour.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of breastfeeding or nipple stimulation on postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) during the third stage of labour.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (15 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing breast stimulation, breastfeeding or suckling for PPH in the third stage of labour were selected for this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in terms of risk of bias and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials (4608 women), but only two studies contributed data to the review's analyses (n = 4472). The studies contributing data were assessed as of high risk of bias overall. One of these studies was cluster-randomised and conducted in a low-income country and the other study was carried out in a high-income country. All four included studies assessed blood loss in the third stage of labour. Birth attendants estimated blood loss in two trials. The third trial assessed the hematocrit level on the second day postpartum to determine the effect of the bleeding. The fourth study measured PPH ≥ 500 mL. Nipple stimulation versus no treatmentOne study (4385 women) compared the effect of suckling versus no treatment. Blood loss was not measured in 114 women (59 in control group and 55 in suckling group). After excluding twin pregnancies, stillbirths and neonatal deaths, the main analyses for this trial were performed on 4227 vaginal deliveries. In terms of maternal death or severe morbidity, one maternal death occurred in the suckling group due to retained placenta (risk ratio (RR) 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 74.26; one study, participants = 4227; very low quality evidence); severe morbidity was not mentioned. Severe PPH (≥ 1000 mL) was not reported in this study.The incidence of PPH (≥ 500 mL) was similar in the suckling and no treatment groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16; one study, participants = 4227; moderate quality). There were no group differences between nipple stimulation and no treatment regarding blood loss in the third stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 2.00, 95% CI -7.39 to 11.39; one study, participants = 4227; low quality). The rates of retained placenta were similar (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.16; one study, participants = 4227; very low quality evidence), as were perinatal deaths (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.98; one study, participants = 4271; low quality), and maternal readmission to hospital (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.16; one study, participants = 4227; very low quality). We downgraded the evidence for this comparison for risk of bias concerns in the one included trial (inappropriate analyses for cluster design) and for imprecision (wide CIs crossing the line of no difference and, for some outcomes, few events).Many maternal secondary outcomes (including side effects) were not reported. Similarly, most neonatal secondary outcomes were not reported. Nipple stimulation versus oxytocinAnother study compared the effect of nipple stimulation (via a breast pump) with oxytocin. Eighty-seven women were recruited but only 85 women were analysed. Severe PPH ≥ 1000 mL and maternal death or severe morbidity were not reported.There was no clear effect of nipple stimulation on blood loss (MD 15.00, 95% CI -24.50 to 54.50; one study, participants = 85; low quality evidence), or on postnatal anaemia compared to the oxytocin group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.42; one study, participants = 85; low quality evidence). We downgraded evidence for this comparison due to risk of bias concerns in the one included trial (alternate allocation) and for imprecision (wide CIs crossing the line of no difference and small sample size).Many maternal secondary outcomes (including side effects) were not reported, and none of this review's neonatal secondary outcomes were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies reported one of this review's primary outcomes: severe PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Only one study reported on maternal death or severe morbidity. There were limited secondary outcome data for maternal outcomes and very few secondary outcome data for neonatal outcomes.There was no clear differences between nipple stimulation (suckling) versus no treatment in relation to maternal death, the incidence of PPH (≥ 500 mL), blood loss in the third stage of labour, retained placenta, perinatal deaths or maternal readmission to hospital. Whilst these data are based on a single study with a reasonable sample size, the quality of these data are mostly low or very low.There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effect of nipple stimulation for reducing postpartum haemorrhage during the third stage of labour and more evidence from high-quality studies is needed. Further high-quality studies should recruit adequate sample sizes, assess the impact of nipple stimulation compared to uterotonic agents such as syntometrine and oxytocin, and report on important outcomes such as those listed in this review.
Reducing neonatal mortality rates in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) requires postnatal interventions to be delivered through an appropriately prepared and supported workforce. This review examines health workforce interventions that deliver integrated packages of postnatal care to improve neonatal outcomes in LMICs. We conducted a structured search of peer-reviewed articles published during 2003-2014 that investigated the delivery of postnatal interventions by formal and lay health workers. We selected 13 studies and analyzed them using a narrative synthesis methodology. This review observed a wide divergence among studies regarding the outcomes as well as the approaches and duration of workforce training and staff supervision. Except 4, all studies observed a significant reduction in neonatal mortality. On the other hand, teams of lay health workers appear to be more effective in improving neonatal outcomes. Further improvement in the performance of health care providers may require emphasis on workforce interventions such as competency assessment, the acquisition of appropriate skills, and supervisory guidelines. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity and limited number of studies do not allow us to arrive at definitive conclusions, and we recommend the need for the harmonization of future studies, with uniformity of outcome measures and cost analyses.
BACKGROUND: While maternal, infant and under-five child mortality rates in developing countries have declined significantly in the past two to three decades, newborn mortality rates have reduced much more slowly. While it is recognised that almost half of the newborn deaths can be prevented by scaling up evidence-based available interventions (such as tetanus toxoid immunisation to mothers, clean and skilled care at delivery, newborn resuscitation, exclusive breastfeeding, clean umbilical cord care, and/or management of infections in newborns), many require facility-based and outreach services. It has also been stated that a significant proportion of these mortalities and morbidities could also be potentially addressed by developing community-based packaged interventions which should also be supplemented by developing and strengthening linkages with the local health systems. Some of the recent community-based studies of interventions targeting women of reproductive age have shown variable impacts on maternal outcomes and hence it is uncertain if these strategies have consistent benefit across the continuum of maternal and newborn care.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of community-based intervention packages in reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality; and improving neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (31 May 2014), World Bank's JOLIS (25 May 2014), BLDS at IDS and IDEAS database of unpublished working papers (25 May 2014), Google and Google Scholar (25 May 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA: All prospective randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effectiveness of community-based intervention packages in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidities, and improving neonatal outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: The review included 26 cluster-randomised/quasi-randomised trials, covering a wide range of interventional packages, including two subsets from three trials. Assessment of risk of bias in these studies suggests concerns regarding insufficient information on sequence generation and regarding failure to adequately address incomplete outcome data, particularly from randomised controlled trials. We incorporated data from these trials using generic inverse variance method in which logarithms of risk ratio (RR) estimates were used along with the standard error of the logarithms of RR estimates.
Our review showed a possible effect in terms of a reduction in maternal mortality (RR 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.00, random-effects (11 studies, n = 167,311; random-effects, Tau² = 0.03, I² 20%). However, significant reduction was observed in maternal morbidity (average RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; four studies, n = 138,290; random-effects, Tau² = 0.02, I² = 28%); neonatal mortality (average RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83; 21 studies, n = 302,646; random-effects, Tau² = 0.06, I² = 85%) including both early and late mortality; stillbirths (average RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; 15 studies, n = 201,181; random-effects, Tau² = 0.03, I² = 66%); and perinatal mortality (average RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.86; 17 studies, n = 282,327; random-effects Tau² = 0.04, I² = 88%) as a consequence of implementation of community-based interventional care packages.
Community-based intervention packages also increased the uptake of tetanus immunisation by 5% (average RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; seven studies, n = 71,622; random-effects Tau² = 0.00, I² = 52%); use of clean delivery kits by 82% (average RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.02; four studies, n = 54,254; random-effects, Tau² = 0.23, I² = 90%); rates of institutional deliveries by 20% (average RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.39; 14 studies, n = 147,890; random-effects, Tau² = 0.05, I² = 80%); rates of early breastfeeding by 93% (average RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.55 to 2.39; 11 studies, n = 72,464; random-effects, Tau² = 0.14, I² = 98%), and healthcare seeking for neonatal morbidities by 42% (average RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.77, nine studies, n = 66,935, random-effects, Tau² = 0.09, I² = 92%). The review also showed a possible effect on increasing the uptake of iron/folic acid supplementation during pregnancy (average RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.99 to 2.17; six studies, n = 71,622; random-effects, Tau² = 0.26; I² = 99%).
It has no impact on improving referrals for maternal morbidities, healthcare seeking for maternal morbidities, iron/folate supplementation, attendance of skilled birth attendance on delivery, and other neonatal care-related outcomes. We did not find studies that reported the impact of community-based intervention package on improving exclusive breastfeeding rates at six months of age. We assessed our primary outcomes for publication bias and observed slight asymmetry on the funnel plot for maternal mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review offers encouraging evidence that community-based intervention packages reduce morbidity for women, mortality and morbidity for babies, and improves care-related outcomes particularly in low- and middle-income countries. It has highlighted the value of integrating maternal and newborn care in community settings through a range of interventions, which can be packaged effectively for delivery through a range of community health workers and health promotion groups. While the importance of skilled delivery and facility-based services for maternal and newborn care cannot be denied, there is sufficient evidence to scale up community-based care through packages which can be delivered by a range of community-based workers.
Every year, nearly 1 million babies succumb to birth asphyxia (BA) within the Asia-Pacific region. The present study sought to determine whether educational interventions containing some element of resuscitation training would decrease the relative risk (RR) of neonatal mortality attributable to BA in low-resource communities. We systematically reviewed 3 electronic databases and identified 14 relevant reports. For community deliveries, providing traditional birth attendants (TBAs) with neonatal resuscitation training modestly reduced the RR in 3 of 4 studies. For institutional deliveries, training a range of clinical staff clearly reduced the RR within 2 of 8 studies. When resuscitation-specific training was directed to community and institutional health care workers, a slight benefit was observed in 1 of 2 studies. Specific training in neonatal resuscitation appears most effective when provided to TBAs (specifically, those presented with ongoing opportunities to review and update their skills), but this particular intervention alone may not appreciably reduce mortality.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide, and especially in developing countries do not receive this amount of care. Poor attendance of ANC is associated with delivery of low birthweight babies and more neonatal deaths. ANC may include education on nutrition, potential problems with pregnancy or childbirth, child care and prevention or detection of disease during pregnancy.This review focused on community-based interventions and health systems-related interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of health system and community interventions for improving coverage of antenatal care and other perinatal health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Trials of any interventions to improve ANC coverage were eligible for inclusion. Trials were also eligible if they targeted specific and related outcomes, such as maternal or perinatal death, but also reported ANC coverage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 trials involving approximately 400,000 women. Some trials tested community-based interventions to improve uptake of antenatal care (media campaigns, education or financial incentives for pregnant women), while other trials looked at health systems interventions (home visits for pregnant women or equipment for clinics). Most trials took place in low- and middle-income countries, and 29 of the 34 trials used a cluster-randomised design. We assessed 30 of the 34 trials as of low or unclear overall risk of bias. Comparison 1: One intervention versus no interventionWe found marginal improvements in ANC coverage of at least four visits (average odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.22; participants = 45,022; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 52%; high quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis with a more conservative intra-cluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) gave similar marginal results. Excluding one study at high risk of bias shifted the marginal pooled estimate towards no effect. There was no effect on pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.08; participants = 114,930; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; studies = 15; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 58%; moderate quality evidence) or low birthweight (average OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 5%; high quality evidence). Single interventions led to marginal improvements in the number of women who delivered in health facilities (average OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; high quality evidence), and in the proportion of women who had at least one ANC visit (average OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.24; I² = 76%; moderate quality evidence). Results for ANC coverage (at least four and at least one visit) and for perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Single interventions did not improve the proportion of women receiving tetanus protection (average OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; studies = 8; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 57%). No study reported onintermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 2: Two or more interventions versus no interventionWe found no improvements in ANC coverage of four or more visits (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.21; participants = 7840; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10; I² = 48%; low quality evidence) or pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.26; participants = 13,756; studies = three; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). However, combined interventions led to improvements in ANC coverage of at least one visit (average OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.17; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.06; I² = 83%; moderate quality evidence) and low birthweight (average OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; studies = two; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses for both ANC coverage four or more visits and perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Combined interventions improved the proportion of women who had tetanus protection (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.87; studies = 3; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 33%). No trial in this comparison reported on intermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 3: Two interventions compared head to head. No trials found. Comparison 4: One intervention versus a combination of interventionsThere was no difference in ANC coverage (four or more visits and at least one visit), pregnancy-related deaths, deliveries in a health facility or perinatal mortality. No trials in this comparison reported on low birthweight orintermittent prophylactic treatment of malaria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice - Single interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit and four or more visits) and deliveries in health facilities. Combined interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit), reduce perinatal mortality and reduce the occurrence of low birthweight. The effects of the interventions are unrelated to whether they are community or health system interventions. Implications for research - More details should be provided in reporting numbers of events, group totals and the ICCs used to adjust for cluster effects. Outcomes should be reported uniformly so that they are comparable to commonly-used population indicators. We recommend further cluster-RCTs of pregnant women and women in their reproductive years, using combinations of interventions and looking at outcomes that are important to pregnant women, such as maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, alongside the explanatory outcomes along the pathway of care: ANC coverage, the services provided during ANC and deliveries in health facilities.
Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly recognized as an integral component of the health workforce needed to achieve public health goals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many factors influence CHW performance. A systematic review was conducted to identify intervention design related factors influencing performance of CHWs. We systematically searched six databases for quantitative and qualitative studies that included CHWs working in promotional, preventive or curative primary health services in LMICs. One hundred and forty studies met the inclusion criteria, were quality assessed and double read to extract data relevant to the design of CHW programmes. A preliminary framework containing factors influencing CHW performance and characteristics of CHW performance (such as motivation and competencies) guided the literature search and review.A mix of financial and non-financial incentives, predictable for the CHWs, was found to be an effective strategy to enhance performance, especially of those CHWs with multiple tasks. Performance-based financial incentives sometimes resulted in neglect of unpaid tasks. Intervention designs which involved frequent supervision and continuous training led to better CHW performance in certain settings. Supervision and training were often mentioned as facilitating factors, but few studies tested which approach worked best or how these were best implemented. Embedment of CHWs in community and health systems was found to diminish workload and increase CHW credibility. Clearly defined CHW roles and introduction of clear processes for communication among different levels of the health system could strengthen CHW performance.When designing community-based health programmes, factors that increased CHW performance in comparable settings should be taken into account. Additional intervention research to develop a better evidence base for the most effective training and supervision mechanisms and qualitative research to inform policymakers in development of CHW interventions are needed.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of all newborns require resuscitation at birth. Training healthcare providers in standardised formal neonatal resuscitation training (SFNRT) programmes may improve neonatal outcomes. Substantial healthcare resources are expended on SFNRT.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether SFNRT programmes reduce neonatal mortality and morbidity, improve acquisition and retention of knowledge and skills, or change teamwork and resuscitation behaviour.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, ongoing trials and conference proceedings in April 2014 and updated in March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials including cluster-randomised trials, comparing a SFNRT with no SFNRT, additions to SFNRT or types of SFNRT, and reporting at least one of our specified outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data independently and performed statistical analyses including typical risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), mean difference (MD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) (all with 95% confidence intervals (CI)). We analysed cluster-randomised trials using the generic inverse variance and the approximate analysis methods.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified two community-based and three manikin-based trials that assessed the effect of SFNRT compared with no SFNRT. Very low quality evidence from one study suggested improvement in acquisition of knowledge (RR 5.96, 95% CI 3.60 to 9.87) and skills (RR 170, 95% CI 10.8 to 2711) and retention of knowledge (RR 3.60, 95% CI 2.43 to 5.35) and the other study suggested improvement in resuscitation and behavioural scores.We identified three community-based cluster-randomised trials in developing countries comparing SFNRT with basic resuscitation training (Early Newborn Care). In this setting, there was moderate quality evidence that SFNRT decreased early neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 3 studies, 66,162 neonates) and when analysed by the approximate analysis method (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; RD -0.0044, 95% CI -0.0082 to -0.0006; NNTB 227, 95% CI 122 to 1667). Low quality evidence from one trial showed that SFNRT may decrease 28-day mortality (typical RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91) but the effect on late neonatal mortality was more uncertain (typical RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11). None of our a priori defined neonatal morbidities were reported. We did not identify any randomised studies in the developed world.We identified two trials that compared SFNRT with team training to SFNRT. Teamwork training of physician trainees with simulation may increase any teamwork behaviour (assessed by frequency) (MD 2.41, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.11) and decrease resuscitation duration (MD -149.54, 95% CI -214.73 to -84.34) but may lead to little or no difference in Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) scores (MD 1.40, 95% CI -2.02 to 4.82; 98 participants, low quality evidence).We identified two trials that compared SFNRT with booster courses to SFNRT. It is uncertain whether booster courses improve retention of resuscitation knowledge (84 participants, very low quality evidence) but may improve procedural and behavioural skills (40 participants, very low quality evidence).We identified two trials on decision support tools, one on a cognitive aid that did not change resuscitation scores and the other on an electronic decision support tool that improved the frequency of correct decision making on positive pressure ventilation, cardiac compressions and frequency of fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) adjustments (97 participants, very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SFNRT compared to basic newborn care or basic newborn resuscitation, in developing countries, results in a reduction of early neonatal and 28-day mortality. Randomised trials of SFNRT should report on neonatal morbidity including hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Innovative educational methods that enhance knowledge and skills and teamwork behaviour should be evaluated.
BACKGROUND: In several developing countries, achieving Millennium Development Goal 4 is still off track. Multiple maternal and fetal risk factors were inconsistently attributed to the high perinatal mortality in developing countries. However, there was no meta-analysis that assessed the pooled effect of these factors on perinatal mortality. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify maternal and fetal factors predicting perinatal mortality.
METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we included 23 studies that assessed perinatal mortality in relation to antenatal care, parity, mode of delivery, gestational age, birth weight and sex of the fetus. A computer based search of articles was conducted mainly in the databases of PUBMED, MEDLINE, HINARI, AJOL, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library. The overall odds ratios (OR) were determined by the random-effect model. Heterogeneity testing and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.
RESULTS: The pooled analysis showed a strong association of perinatal mortality with lack of antenatal care (OR=3.2), prematurity (OR=7.9), low birth weight (OR=9.6), and marginal association with primigravidity (OR=1.5) and male sex (OR=1.2). The regression analysis also showed down-going trend lines of stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates in relation to the proportion of antenatal care. The metaanalysis showed that there was no association between mode of delivery and perinatal mortality.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in perinatal mortality among women who attended antenatal care, gave birth to term and normal birth weight baby. However, the association of perinatal mortality with parity, mode of delivery and fetal sex needs further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) interventions are widely promoted by governments and international agencies to reduce maternal and neonatal health risks in developing countries; however, their overall impact is uncertain, and little is known about how best to implement BPCR at a community level. Our primary aim was to evaluate the impact of BPCR interventions involving women, families and communities during the prenatal, postnatal and neonatal periods to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in developing countries. We also examined intervention impact on a variety of intermediate outcomes important for maternal and child survival.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of BPCR interventions in populations of pregnant women living in developing countries. To identify relevant studies, we searched the scientific literature in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, Reproductive health library, CINAHL and Popline databases. We also undertook manual searches of article bibliographies and web sites. Study inclusion was based on pre-specified criteria. We synthesised data by computing pooled relative risks (RR) using the Cochrane RevMan software.
RESULTS: Fourteen randomized studies (292 256 live births) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses showed that exposure to BPCR interventions was associated with a statistically significant reduction of 18% in neonatal mortality risk (twelve studies, RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.91) and a non-significant reduction of 28% in maternal mortality risk (seven studies, RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.13). Results were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 76%, p < 0.001 and I2 = 72%, p = 0.002 for neonatal and maternal results, respectively). Subgroup analyses of studies in which at least 30% of targeted women participated in interventions showed a 24% significant reduction of neonatal mortality risk (nine studies, RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.85) and a 53% significant reduction in maternal mortality risk (four studies, RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.87).Pooled results revealed that BPCR interventions were also associated with increased likelihood of use of care in the event of newborn illness, clean cutting of the umbilical cord and initiation of breastfeeding in the first hour of life.
CONCLUSIONS: With adequate population coverage, BPCR interventions are effective in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality in low-resources settings.
Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS:
We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS:
Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS:
This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
