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.
Objective: To determine whether home visits for neonatal care by community health workers can reduce infant and neonatal deaths and stillbirths in resource-limited settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic review up to 2008 of controlled trials comparing various intervention packages, one of them being home visits for neonatal care by community health workers. We performed meta-analysis to calculate the pooled risk of outcomes. Findings: Five trials, all from south Asia, satisfied the inclusion criteria. The intervention packages included in them comprised antenatal home visits (all trials), home visits during the neonatal period (all trials), home-based treatment for illness (3 trials) and community mobilization efforts (4 trials). Meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of neonatal death (relative risk, RR: 0.62; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.44-0.87) and stillbirth (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65-0.89), and a significant improvement in antenatal and neonatal practice indicators (> 1 antenatal check-up, 2 doses of maternal tetanus toxoid, clean umbilical cord care, early breastfeeding and delayed bathing). Only one trial recorded infant deaths (RR: 0.41; 0.30-0.57). Subgroup analyses suggested a greater survival benefit when home visit coverage was ≥ 50% (P < 0.001) and when both preventive and curative interventions (injectable antibiotics) were conducted (P = 0.088). Conclusion: Home visits for antenatal and neonatal care, together with community mobilization activities, are associated with reduced neonatal mortality and stillbirths in southern Asian settings with high neonatal mortality and poor access to facility-based health care.
The Lancet Neonatal Survival Series categorized neonatal health interventions into 3 service delivery modes: "Outreach," "Family-Community Care," and "Facility-based Clinical Care." Family-Community Care services generally have a greater potential impact on neonatal health than Outreach services, with similar costs. Combining interventions from all 3 service delivery modes is ideal for achievement of high impact. However, access to clinical care is limited in resource-poor settings with weak health systems. The current trend for those settings is to combine neonatal interventions into community-based intervention packages (CBIPs), which can be integrated into the local health care system. In this article, we searched several large databases to identify all published, large-scale, controlled studies that were implemented in a rural setting, included a control group, and reported neonatal and/or perinatal mortality as outcomes. We identified only 9 large-scale studies that fit these criteria. Several conclusions can be reached. (1) Family-Community Care interventions can have a substantial effect on neonatal and perinatal mortality. (2) Several important common strategies were used across the studies, including community mobilization, health education, behavior change communication sessions, care seeking modalities, and home visits during pregnancy and after birth. However, implementation of these interventions varied widely across the studies. (3) There is a need for additional, large-scale studies to test evidence-based CBIPs in developing countries, particularly in Africa, where no large-scale studies were identified. (4) We need to establish consistent, clearly defined terminology and protocols for designing trials and reporting outcomes so that we are able to compare results across different settings. (5) There is an urgent need to invest in research and program development focusing on neonatal health in urban areas. (6) It is crucial to integrate CBIPs in rural and urban settings into the already existing health care system to facilitate sustainability of the program and for scaling up. It is also important to evaluate the packages and to demonstrate the health impact of large-scale implementation. (7) Finally, there is a need for improving the continuum of care between home and facility-based care.
This article assesses 36 peer-reviewed studies of the impact of primary healthcare (PHC) on health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. Studies were abstracted and assessed according to where they took place, the research design used, target population, primary care measures, and overall conclusions. Results indicate that the bulk of evidence for PHC effectiveness is focused on infant and child health, but there is also evidence of the positive role PHC has on population health over time. Although the peer-reviewed literature is lacking in rigorous experimental studies, a small number of relatively well-designed observational studies and the consistency of findings generally support the contention that an integrated approach to primary care can improve health. A few large-scale experiences also help identify elements of good practice. The review concludes with several recommendations for future studies, including a focus on better conceptualizing and measuring PHC, further investigation into the advantages of comprehensive over selective PHC, need for experimental or quasi-experimental research designs that allow testing of the independent effect of primary care on outcomes over time, and a more detailed conceptual framework guiding overall evaluation design that places limits on the parameters under consideration and describes relationships among different levels and types of data likely to be collected in the evaluation process.
A disproportionate burden of infant and under-five childhood mortality occurs during the neonatal period, usually within a few days of birth and against a backdrop of socio-economic deprivation in developing countries. To guide programmes aimed at averting these 4 million annual deaths, recent reviews have evaluated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of individual interventions during the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal periods in reducing neonatal mortality, and packages of interventions have been proposed for wide-scale implementation. However, no systematic review of the empirical data on packages of interventions, including consideration of community-based intervention packages, has yet been performed. To address this gap, we reviewed peer-reviewed journals and grey literature to evaluate the content, impact, efficacy (implementation under ideal circumstances), effectiveness (implementation within health systems), type of provider, and cost of packages of interventions reporting neonatal health outcomes. Studies employing more than one biologically plausible neonatal health intervention (i.e. package) and reporting neonatal morbidity or mortality outcomes were included. Studies were ordered by study design and mortality stratum, and their component interventions classified by time period of delivery and service delivery mode. We found 41 studies that implemented packages of interventions and reported neonatal health outcomes, including 19 randomized controlled trials. True effectiveness trials conducted at scale in health systems were completely lacking. No study targeted women prior to conception, antenatal interventions were largely micronutrient supplementation studies, and intrapartum interventions were limited principally to clean delivery. Few studies approximated complete packages recommended in The Lancet's Neonatal Survival Series. Interventions appeared largely bundled out of convenience or funding requirements, rather than based on anticipated synergistic effects, like service delivery mode or cost-effectiveness. Only two studies reported cost-effectiveness data. The evidence base for the impact of neonatal health intervention packages is a weak foundation for guiding effective implementation of public health programmes addressing neonatal health. Significant investment in effectiveness trials carefully tailored to local health needs and conducted at scale in developing countries is required.
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.
