Weak delivery systems reduce the potential of evidence-supp orted interventions to improve nutrition. We synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of nutrition-specific intervention delivery platforms for improving nutrition outcomes in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). A systematic literature search for studies published from 1997 to June 2018 resulted in the inclusion of 83 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, and controlled before-after studies across a variety of delivery platforms. In this paper, we report on meta-analysed outcomes for community health worker (CHW) home visits and mother/peer group delivery platforms. Compared to care as usual, CHW home visits increased early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.99; n = 10 RCTs) and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) (OR: 4.42; 95% CI: 2.28, 8.56; n = 9 RCTs) and mother/peer groups were effective for improving children's minimum dietary diversity (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.17, 4.70; n = 4) and minimum meal frequency (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.61, 3.31; n = 3). Pooled estimates from studies using both home visit and group platforms showed positive results for EIBF (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.12, 4.05; n = 9), EBF (OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.70, 3.46; n = 12), and < 5 wasting (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.89; n = 4). Our findings underscore the importance of interpersonal community platforms for improving infant and young child feeding practices and children's nutritional status in LMICs.
BACKGROUND: There are rising rates of multiple births worldwide with associated higher rates of complications and more hospital care, often due to prematurity. While there is strong evidence about the risks of not breastfeeding, rates of breastfeeding in women who have given birth to more than one infant are lower than with singleton births. Breastfeeding more than one infant can be more challenging because of difficulties associated with the birth or prematurity. The extra demands on the mother of frequent suckling, coordinating the needs of more than one infant or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit can lead to delayed initiation or early cessation. Additional options such as breast milk expression, the use of donor milk or different methods of supplementary feeding may be considered. Support and education about breastfeeding has been found to improve the duration of any breastfeeding for healthy term infants and their mothers, however evidence is lacking about interventions that are effective to support women with twins or higher order multiples.
OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 July 2016), the excluded studies list from the equivalent Cochrane review of singletons, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing extra education or support for women with twins or higher order multiples were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We planned to assess the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach, but were unable to analyse any data.
MAIN RESULTS: We found 10 trials (23 reports) of education and support for breastfeeding that included women with twins or higher order multiples. The quality of evidence was mixed, and the risk of bias was mostly high or unclear. It is difficult to blind women or staff to group allocation for this intervention, so in all studies there was high risk of performance and high or unclear risk of detection bias. Trials recruited 5787 women (this included 512 women interviewed as part of a cluster randomised trial); of these, data were available from two studies for 42 women with twins or higher order multiples. None of the interventions were specifically designed for women with more than one infant, and the outcomes for multiples were not reported separately for each infant. Due to the scarcity of evidence and the format in which data were reported, a narrative description of the data is presented, no analyses are presented in this review, and we were unable to GRADE the evidence.The two trials with data for women with multiple births compared home nurse visits versus usual care (15 women), and telephone peer counselling versus usual care (27 women). The number of women who initiated breastfeeding was reported (all 15 women in one study, 25 out of 27 women in one study). Stopping any breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping exclusive breastfeeding before four to six weeks postpartum, stopping any breastfeeding before six months postpartum andstopping exclusive breastfeeding before six months postpartum were not explicitly reported, and there were insufficient data to draw any meaningful conclusions from survival data. Stopping breast milk expression before four to six weeks postpartum, andstopping breast milk expression before six months postpartum were not reported. Measures ofmaternal satisfaction were reported in one study of 15 women, but there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions; no other secondary outcomes were reported for women with multiple births in either study. No adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effectiveness of breastfeeding education and support for women with twins or higher order multiples, or the most effective way to provide education and support . There was no evidence about the best way to deliver the intervention, the timing of care, or the best person to deliver the care. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered studies of interventions designed for women with twins or higher order multiples to find out what types of education and support are effective in helping these mothers to breastfeed their babies.
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.
Weak delivery systems reduce the potential of evidence-supp orted interventions to improve nutrition. We synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of nutrition-specific intervention delivery platforms for improving nutrition outcomes in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). A systematic literature search for studies published from 1997 to June 2018 resulted in the inclusion of 83 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, and controlled before-after studies across a variety of delivery platforms. In this paper, we report on meta-analysed outcomes for community health worker (CHW) home visits and mother/peer group delivery platforms. Compared to care as usual, CHW home visits increased early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI.: 1.12, 1.99; n = 10 RCTs) and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) (OR: 4.42; 95% CI.: 2.28, 8.56; n = 9 RCTs) and mother/peer groups were effective for improving children's minimum dietary diversity (OR: 2.34; 95% CI.: 1.17, 4.70; n = 4) and minimum meal frequency (OR: 2.31; 95% CI.: 1.61, 3.31; n = 3). Pooled estimates from studies using both home visit and group platforms showed positive results for EIBF (OR: 2.13; 95% CI.: 1.12, 4.05; n = 9), EBF (OR: 2.43; 95% CI.: 1.70, 3.46; n = 12), and < 5 wasting (OR: 0.77; 95% CI.: 0.67, 0.89; n = 4). Our findings underscore the importance of interpersonal community platforms for improving infant and young child feeding practices and children's nutritional status in LMICs.
