INTRODUCTION: Unsafe abortion is the cause of a substantial number of maternal mortalities and morbidities globally, but specifically in low- and middle-income countries. Medical abortion methods provided by non-physicians may be a way to reduce the burden of unsafe abortions. Currently, only one systematic review comparing non-physicians with physicians for medical abortion exists. However, the review does not have any setting restrictions and newer evidence has since been published. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, and safety of first-trimester abortion managed by non-physicians compared to physicians in low- and middle-income countries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library, and EMBASE were searched by use of a structured search strategy. Further, the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and The International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched for published and unpublished trials. Randomized controlled trials comparing provision of medical abortion by non-physicians to physicians in low- or middle-income countries were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Trials that reported effect estimates on the effectiveness of medical methods on complete abortion were included in the meta-analysis. The protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database, ID: CRD42020176811.
RESULTS: Six papers from four different randomized controlled trials with a total of 4021 participants were included. Two of the four included trials were assessed to have overall low risk of bias. Four papers had outcome data on complete abortion and were included in the meta-analyses. Medical management of first-trimester abortion and medical treatment of incomplete abortion were found to be equally effective when provided by a non-physician as when provided by a physician (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99-1.01). Further, the treatment was equally safe, and women were equally satisfied when a non-physician provided the treatment compared to a physician.
CONCLUSIONS: Provision of medical abortion or medical treatment for incomplete abortion in the first trimester is equally effective, safe, and acceptable when provided by non-physicians compared to physicians in low- and middle-income countries. We recommend that the task of providing medical abortion and medical treatment for incomplete abortion in low- and middle-income countries is shared with non-physicians.
BACKGROUND: In the UK, according to the 1967 Abortion Act, all abortions must be approved by two doctors, reported to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and be performed by doctors within licensed premises. Removing abortion from the criminal framework could permit new service delivery models. We explore service delivery models in primary care settings that can improve accessibility without negatively impacting the safety and efficiency of abortion services. Novel service delivery models are common in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) due to resource constraints, and services are sometimes provided by trained, mid-level providers via "task-shifting". The aim of this study is to explore the quality of early abortion services provided in primary care of LMICs and explore the potential benefits of extending their application to the UK context.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, and HMIC for studies published from September 1994 to February 2020, with search terms "nurses", "midwives", "general physicians", "early medical/surgical abortion". We included studies that examined the quality of abortion care in primary care settings of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), and excluded studies in countries where abortion is illegal, and those of services provided by independent NGOs. We conducted a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis to identify indicators of quality care at structural, process and outcome levels of the Donabedian model.
RESULTS: A total of 21 indicators under 8 subthemes were identified to examine the quality of service provision: law and policy, infrastructure, technical competency, information provision, client-provider interactions, ancillary services, complete abortions, client satisfaction. Our analysis suggests that structural, process and outcome indicators follow a mediation pathway of the Donabedian model. This review showed that providing early medical abortion in primary care services is safe and feasible and "task-shifting" to mid-level providers can effectively replace doctors in providing abortion.
CONCLUSION: The way services are organised in LMICs, using a task-shifted and decentralised model, results in high quality services that should be considered for adoption in the UK. Collaboration with professional medical bodies and governmental departments is necessary to expand services from secondary to primary care.
BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have concluded that medical termination of pregnancy (TOP) provided by non-physician providers may be as effective and safe as when provided by physicians. Medical treatment of incomplete miscarriage by non-physicians, and treated women's acceptability with non-physician providers of TOP has not previously been reviewed.
OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of non-physician provision of first trimester medical TOP including medical treatment for incomplete miscarriage.
SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: A search strategy using appropriate medical subject headings was developed. Electronic databases (PubMed, Popline, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials. gov) were searched from inception through April 2016. Randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Meta-analyses were performed for included randomized controlled trials regarding the outcomes effectiveness and acceptability to women. Certainty of evidence was established using the GRADE approach assessing study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS: Six papers were included. Medical TOP and medical treatment of incomplete miscarriage is probably equally effective provided by non-physician providers as by physicians (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01). Women's acceptability reported as overall satisfaction with allocated provider is probably equally high between groups (RR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Medical TOP and medical treatment of incomplete miscarrage provided by trained non-physician providers is probably equally as effective and acceptable to women as when provided by physicians.
BACKGROUND: Task shifting has become an increasingly popular way to increase access to health services, especially in low-resource settings. Research has demonstrated that task shifting, including the use of community health workers (CHWs) to deliver care, can improve population health. This systematic review investigates whether task shifting in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) results in efficiency improvements by achieving cost savings.
METHODS: Using the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Health Economic Evaluation Database on March 22, 2016. We included any original peer-review articles that demonstrated cost impact of a task shifting program in an LMIC.
RESULTS: We identified 794 articles, of which 34 were included in our study. We found that substantial evidence exists for achieving cost savings and efficiency improvements from task shifting activities related to tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, and additional evidence exists for the potential to achieve cost savings from activities related to malaria, NCDs, NTDs, childhood illness, and other disease areas, especially at the primary health care and community levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Task shifting presents a viable option for health system cost savings in LMICs. Going forward, program planners should carefully consider whether task shifting can improve population health and health systems efficiency in their countries, and researchers should investigate whether task shifting can also achieve cost savings for activities related to emerging global health priorities and health systems strengthening activities such as supply chain management or monitoring and evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Many interventions have been implemented to improve maternal health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Currently, however, systematic information on the effectiveness of these interventions remains scarce. We conducted a systematic review of published evidence on non-drug interventions that reported effectiveness in improving outcomes and quality of care in maternal health in SSA.
METHODS: African Journals Online, Bioline, MEDLINE, Ovid, Science Direct, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published in English between 2000 and 2015 and reporting on the effectiveness of interventions to improve quality and outcomes of maternal health care in SSA. Articles focusing on interventions that involved drug treatments, medications, or therapies were excluded. We present a narrative synthesis of the reported impact of these interventions on maternal morbidity and mortality outcomes as well as on other dimensions of the quality of maternal health care (as defined by the Institute of Medicine 2001 to comprise safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient centeredness, and equitability).
RESULTS: Seventy-three studies were included in this review. Non-drug interventions that directly or indirectly improved quality of maternal health and morbidity and mortality outcomes in SSA assumed a variety of forms including mobile and electronic health, financial incentives on the demand and supply side, facility-based clinical audits and maternal death reviews, health systems strengthening interventions, community mobilization and/or peer-based programs, home-based visits, counseling and health educational and promotional programs conducted by health care providers, transportation and/or communication and referrals for emergency obstetric care, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and task shifting interventions. There was a preponderance of single facility and community-based studies whose effectiveness was difficult to assess.
CONCLUSIONS: Many non-drug interventions have been implemented to improve maternal health care in SSA. These interventions have largely been health facility and/or community based. While the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve maternal health is varied, study findings underscore the importance of implementing comprehensive interventions that strengthen different components of the health care systems, both in the community and at the health facilities, coupled with a supportive policy environment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023750.
Background: The World Health Organization recommends that abortion can be provided at the lowest level of the healthcare system. Training mid-level providers, such as midwives, nurses and other non-physician providers, to conduct first trimester aspiration abortions and manage medical abortions has been proposed as a way to increase women's access to safe abortion procedures. Objectives: To assess the safety and effectiveness of abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers compared to doctors. Search methods: We searched the CENTRAL Issue 7, MEDLINE and POPLINE databases for comparative studies of doctor and mid-level providers of abortion services. We searched for studies published in any language from January 1980 until 15 August 2014. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (clustered or not clustered), prospective cohort studies or observational studies that compared the safety or effectiveness (or both) of any type of first trimester abortion procedure, administered by any type of mid-level provider or doctors, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Data collection and analysis: Two independent review authors screened abstracts for eligibility and double-extracted data from the included studies using a pre-tested form. We meta-analysed primary outcome data using both fixed-effect and random-effects models to obtain pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We carried out separate analyses by study design (RCT or cohort) and type of abortion procedure (medical versus surgical). Main results: Eight studies involving 22,018 participants met our eligibility criteria. Five studies (n = 18,962) assessed the safety and effectiveness of surgical abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers compared to doctors. Three studies (n = 3056) assessed the safety and effectiveness of medical abortion procedures. The surgical abortion studies (one RCT and four cohort studies) were carried out in the United States, India, South Africa and Vietnam. The medical abortion studies (two RCTs and one cohort study) were carried out in India, Sweden and Nepal. The studies included women with gestational ages up to 14 weeks for surgical abortion and nine weeks for medical abortion. Risk of selection bias was considered to be low in the three RCTs, unclear in four observational studies and high in one observational study. Concealment bias was considered to be low in the three RCTs and high in all five observational studies. Although none of the eight studies performed blinding of the participants to the provider type, we considered the performance bias to be low as this is part of the intervention. Detection bias was considered to be high in all eight studies as none of the eight studies preformed blinding of the outcome assessment. Attrition bias was low in seven studies and high in one, with over 20% attrition. We considered six studies to have unclear risk of selective reporting bias as their protocols had not been published. The remaining two studies had published their protocols. Few other sources of bias were found. Based on an analysis of three cohort studies, the risk of surgical abortion failure was significantly higher when provided by mid-level providers than when procedures were administered by doctors (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.68), however the quality of evidence for this outcome was deemed to be very low. For surgical abortion procedures, we found no significant differences in the risk of complications between mid-level providers and doctors (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.70 from RCTs; RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.72 from observational studies). When we combined the data for failure and complications for surgical abortion we found no significant differences between mid-level providers and doctors in both the observational study analysis (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.14) and the RCT analysis (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 59.08). The quality of evidence of the outcome for RCT studies was considered to be low and for observational studies very low. For medical abortion procedures the risk of failure was not different for mid-level providers or doctors (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.36 from RCTs; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.88 from observational studies). The quality of evidence of this outcome for the RCT analysis was considered to be high, although the quality of evidence of the observational studies was considered to be very low. There were no complications reported in the three medical abortion studies. Authors' conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of failure for medical abortions performed by mid-level providers compared with doctors. Observational data indicate that there may be a higher risk of abortion failure for surgical abortion procedures administered by mid-level providers, but the number of studies is small and more robust data from controlled trials are needed. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of complications for first trimester surgical abortions performed by mid-level providers compared with doctors.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of task shifting for the delivery of injectable contraceptives, contraceptive implants, intrauterine devices (IUDs), tubal ligation and vasectomy in low- and middle-income countries.
METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched up to 25 May 2012 for studies which had assessed the delivery of contraceptives by health workers with lower levels of training, compared to delivery by health workers usually assigned this role, or compared to no organized provision of contraceptives. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Data were extracted using a standard form and the certainty of the evidence found was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS: We identified six randomized controlled trials published between 1977 and 1995 that assessed the safety and effectiveness of task shifting for the delivery of long-term contraceptives. Two studies assessed IUD insertion by nurses compared to doctors, two assessed IUD insertion by auxiliary nurse-midwives compared to doctors, one assessed tubal ligation by midwives compared to doctors, and one assessed the delivery of vasectomy by medical students compared to doctors. In general, little or no difference was found in contraceptive outcomes between cadres. Study design limitations and the low number of eligible studies, however, allow only limited conclusions to be drawn.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that task shifting for the delivery of long-term contraceptives may be a safe and effective approach to increasing access to contraception. Further research is needed because the certainty of the evidence identified is variable.
OBJECTIVE: Scarcity and costs of transport have been implicated as key barriers to accessing care when obstetric emergencies occur in community settings. Community-based loans have been used to increase utilization of health facilities and potentially reduce maternal mortality by providing funding at community level to provide emergency transport. This review aimed to provide evidence of the effect of community-based loan funds on utilization of health facilities and reduction of maternal mortality in developing countries.
METHODS: Electronic databases of published literature and websites were searched for relevant literature using a pre-defined set of search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria. Screening of titles, abstracts and full-text articles were done by at least two reviewers independently. Quality assessment was carried out on the selected papers. Data related to deliveries and obstetric complications attended at facilities, maternal deaths and live births were extracted to measure and compare the effects of community-based loan funds using odds ratios (ORs) and reductions in maternal mortality ratio. Forest plots are presented where possible.
RESULTS: The results of the review show that groups where community-based loan funds were implemented (alongside other interventions) generally recorded increases in utilization of health facilities for deliveries, with ORs of 3.5 (0.97-15.48) and 3.55 (1.56-8.05); and an increase in utilization of emergency obstetric care with ORs of 2.22 (0.51-10.38) and 3.37 (1.78-6.37). Intervention groups also experienced a positive effect on met need for complications and a reduction in maternal mortality.
CONCLUSION: There is some evidence to suggest that community-based loan funds as part of a multifaceted intervention have positive effects. Conclusions are limited by challenges of study design and bias. Further studies which strengthen the evidence of the effects of loan funds, and mechanism for their functionality, are recommended.
State/non-state partnerships in the health sector are of crucial importance in Nepal where partnerships between the Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) and external actors have been fundamental to Nepal making progress in meeting millennium development goals. However, partnerships need to be strengthened. To gather information about partnerships we searched MoHP partnership evaluations as well as PubMed Central, EBSCOhost, OVIDSP, PROQUEST, Science Direct, and MedLine. We found 11 MoHP documents and 167 papers about state/non-state partnerships. Using the inclusion criteria we examined three MoHP policy documents/evaluations and 16 papers to extract information about partners, partnership health area focus, partner contributions, partnership outcomes, and partnership functioning themes. Themes about partnership functioning include the need to strengthen clarity of roles and responsibilities, strengthen leadership, as well as to ensure integration of partnership achievements systemically within the health sector. There were limitations in this review. In the academic literature there were no studies where the state/non-state partnership itself was evaluated. The focus was on the health outcomes and the partnership processes and functioning received little attention. To improve partnerships there is a serious need for research that evaluates the effectiveness of the partnership and the relationships between the partnership and the health outcomes achieved.
BACKGROUND: Each year almost 3 million newborns die within the first 28 days of life, 2.6 million babies are stillborn, and 287,000 women die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth worldwide. Effective and cost-effective interventions and behaviours for mothers and newborns exist, but their coverage remains inadequate in low- and middle-income countries, where the vast majority of deaths occur. Cost-effective strategies are needed to increase the coverage of life-saving maternal and newborn interventions and behaviours in resource-constrained settings.
METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken on the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve the demand and supply of maternal and newborn health care in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 1990 was searched using bibliographic databases, websites of selected organizations, and reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. Publications were eligible for inclusion if they report on a behavioural or health systems strategy that sought to improve the utilization or provision of care during pregnancy, childbirth or the neonatal period; report on its cost-effectiveness; and were set in one or more low-income or lower-middle-income countries. The quality of the publications was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Incremental cost per life-year saved and per disability-adjusted life-year averted were compared to gross domestic product per capita.
RESULTS: Forty-eight publications were identified, which reported on 43 separate studies. Sixteen were judged to be of high quality. Common themes were identified and the strategies were presented in relation to the continuum of care and the level of the health system. There was reasonably strong evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the use of women's groups, home-based newborn care using community health workers and traditional birth attendants, adding services to routine antenatal care, a facility-based quality improvement initiative to enhance compliance with care standards, and the promotion of breastfeeding in maternity hospitals. Other strategies reported cost-effectiveness measures that had limited comparability.
CONCLUSION: Demand and supply-side strategies to improve maternal and newborn health care can be cost-effective, though the evidence is limited by the paucity of high quality studies and the use of disparate cost-effectiveness measures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO_ CRD42012003255.
Unsafe abortion is the cause of a substantial number of maternal mortalities and morbidities globally, but specifically in low- and middle-income countries. Medical abortion methods provided by non-physicians may be a way to reduce the burden of unsafe abortions. Currently, only one systematic review comparing non-physicians with physicians for medical abortion exists. However, the review does not have any setting restrictions and newer evidence has since been published. Therefore, this review aims to evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, and safety of first-trimester abortion managed by non-physicians compared to physicians in low- and middle-income countries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library, and EMBASE were searched by use of a structured search strategy. Further, the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and The International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched for published and unpublished trials. Randomized controlled trials comparing provision of medical abortion by non-physicians to physicians in low- or middle-income countries were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Trials that reported effect estimates on the effectiveness of medical methods on complete abortion were included in the meta-analysis. The protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database, ID.: CRD42020176811.
RESULTS:
Six papers from four different randomized controlled trials with a total of 4021 participants were included. Two of the four included trials were assessed to have overall low risk of bias. Four papers had outcome data on complete abortion and were included in the meta-analyses. Medical management of first-trimester abortion and medical treatment of incomplete abortion were found to be equally effective when provided by a non-physician as when provided by a physician (RR: 1.00; 95% CI.: 0.99-1.01). Further, the treatment was equally safe, and women were equally satisfied when a non-physician provided the treatment compared to a physician.
CONCLUSIONS:
Provision of medical abortion or medical treatment for incomplete abortion in the first trimester is equally effective, safe, and acceptable when provided by non-physicians compared to physicians in low- and middle-income countries. We recommend that the task of providing medical abortion and medical treatment for incomplete abortion in low- and middle-income countries is shared with non-physicians.
