50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Does facility birth reduce maternal and perinatal mortality in Brong Ahafo, Ghana? A secondary analysis using data on 119 244 pregnancies from two cluster-randomised controlled trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Maternal and perinatal mortality are still unacceptably high in many countries despite steep increases in facility birth. The evidence that childbirth in facilities reduces mortality is weak, mainly because of the scarcity of robust study designs and data. We aimed to assess this link by quantifying the influence of major determinants of facility birth (cluster-level facility birth, wealth, education, and distance to childbirth care) on several mortality outcomes, while also considering quality of care.

          Methods

          Our study is a secondary analysis of surveillance data on 119 244 pregnancies from two large population-based cluster-randomised controlled trials in Brong Ahafo, Ghana. In addition, we specifically collected data to assess quality of care at all 64 childbirth facilities in the study area. Outcomes were direct maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, first-day and early neonatal mortality, and antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth. We calculated cluster-level facility birth as the percentage of facility births in a woman's village over the preceding 2 years, and we computed distances from women's regular residence to health facilities in a geospatial database. Associations between determinants of facility birth and mortality outcomes were assessed in crude and multivariable multilevel logistic regression models. We stratified perinatal mortality effects by three policy periods, using April 1, 2005, and July 1, 2008, as cutoff points, when delivery-fee exemption and free health insurance were introduced in Ghana. These policies increased facility birth and potentially reduced quality of care.

          Findings

          Higher proportions of facility births in a cluster were not linked to reductions in any of the mortality outcomes. In women who were wealthier, facility births were much more common than in those who were poorer, but mortality was not lower among them or their babies. Women with higher education had lower mortality risks than less-educated women, except first-day and early neonatal mortality. A substantially higher proportion of women living in areas closer to childbirth facilities had facility births and caesarean sections than women living further from childbirth facilities, but mortality risks were not lower despite this increased service use. Among women who lived in areas closer to facilities offering comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEmOC), emergency newborn care, or high-quality routine care, or to facilities that had providers with satisfactory competence, we found a lower risk of intrapartum stillbirth (14·2 per 1000 deliveries at >20 km from a CEmOC facility vs 10·4 per 1000 deliveries at ≤1 km; odds ratio [OR] 1·13, 95% CI 1·06–1·21) and of composite mortality outcomes than among women living in areas where these services were further away. Protective effects of facility birth were restricted to the two earlier policy periods (from June 1, 2003, to June 30, 2008), whereas there was evidence for higher perinatal mortality with increasing wealth (OR 1·09, 1·03–1·14) and lower perinatal mortality with increasing distance from childbirth facilities (OR 0·93, 0·89–0·98) after free health insurance was introduced in July 1, 2008.

          Interpretation

          Facility birth does not necessarily convey a survival benefit for women or babies and should only be recommended in facilities capable of providing emergency obstetric and newborn care and capable of safe-guarding uncomplicated births.

          Funding

          The Baden-Württemberg Foundation, the Daimler and Benz Foundation, the European Social Fund and Ministry of Science, Research, and the Arts Baden-Württemberg, WHO, US Agency for International Development, Save the Children, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the UK Department for International Development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide.

          On the continuum of maternal health care, two extreme situations exist: too little, too late (TLTL) and too much, too soon (TMTS). TLTL describes care with inadequate resources, below evidence-based standards, or care withheld or unavailable until too late to help. TLTL is an underlying problem associated with high maternal mortality and morbidity. TMTS describes the routine over-medicalisation of normal pregnancy and birth. TMTS includes unnecessary use of non-evidence-based interventions, as well as use of interventions that can be life saving when used appropriately, but harmful when applied routinely or overused. As facility births increase, so does the recognition that TMTS causes harm and increases health costs, and often concentrates disrespect and abuse. Although TMTS is typically ascribed to high-income countries and TLTL to low-income and middle-income ones, social and health inequities mean these extremes coexist in many countries. A global approach to quality and equitable maternal health, supporting the implementation of respectful, evidence-based care for all, is urgently needed. We present a systematic review of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for routine antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care, categorising them as recommended, recommended only for clinical indications, and not recommended. We also present prevalence data from middle-income countries for specific clinical practices, which demonstrate TLTL and increasing TMTS. Health-care providers and health systems need to ensure that all women receive high-quality, evidence-based, equitable and respectful care. The right amount of care needs to be offered at the right time, and delivered in a manner that respects, protects, and promotes human rights.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            India's Janani Suraksha Yojana, a conditional cash transfer programme to increase births in health facilities: an impact evaluation.

            In 2005, with the goal of reducing the numbers of maternal and neonatal deaths, the Government of India launched Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), a conditional cash transfer scheme, to incentivise women to give birth in a health facility. We independently assessed the effect of JSY on intervention coverage and health outcomes. We used data from the nationwide district-level household surveys done in 2002-04 and 2007-09 to assess receipt of financial assistance from JSY as a function of socioeconomic and demographic characteristics; and used three analytical approaches (matching, with-versus-without comparison, and differences in differences) to assess the effect of JSY on antenatal care, in-facility births, and perinatal, neonatal, and maternal deaths. Implementation of JSY in 2007-08 was highly variable by state-from less than 5% to 44% of women giving birth receiving cash payments from JSY. The poorest and least educated women did not always have the highest odds of receiving JSY payments. JSY had a significant effect on increasing antenatal care and in-facility births. In the matching analysis, JSY payment was associated with a reduction of 3.7 (95% CI 2.2-5.2) perinatal deaths per 1000 pregnancies and 2.3 (0.9-3.7) neonatal deaths per 1000 livebirths. In the with-versus-without comparison, the reductions were 4.1 (2.5-5.7) perinatal deaths per 1000 pregnancies and 2.4 (0.7-4.1) neonatal deaths per 1000 livebirths. The findings of this assessment are encouraging, but they also emphasise the need for improved targeting of the poorest women and attention to quality of obstetric care in health facilities. Continued independent monitoring and evaluations are important to measure the effect of JSY as financial and political commitment to the programme intensifies. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action.

              To improve maternal health requires action to ensure quality maternal health care for all women and girls, and to guarantee access to care for those outside the system. In this paper, we highlight some of the most pressing issues in maternal health and ask: what steps can be taken in the next 5 years to catalyse action toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goal target of less than 70 maternal deaths per 100 000 livebirths by 2030, with no single country exceeding 140? What steps can be taken to ensure that high-quality maternal health care is prioritised for every woman and girl everywhere? We call on all stakeholders to work together in securing a healthy, prosperous future for all women. National and local governments must be supported by development partners, civil society, and the private sector in leading efforts to improve maternal-perinatal health. This effort means dedicating needed policies and resources, and sustaining implementation to address the many factors influencing maternal health-care provision and use. Five priority actions emerge for all partners: prioritise quality maternal health services that respond to the local specificities of need, and meet emerging challenges; promote equity through universal coverage of quality maternal health services, including for the most vulnerable women; increase the resilience and strength of health systems by optimising the health workforce, and improve facility capability; guarantee sustainable finances for maternal-perinatal health; and accelerate progress through evidence, advocacy, and accountability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                Elsevier Ltd
                2214-109X
                11 July 2019
                August 2019
                11 July 2019
                : 7
                : 8
                : e1074-e1087
                Affiliations
                [a ]Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
                [b ]Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [c ]Research Department 2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
                [d ]Institute of Public Health, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [e ]Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore
                [f ]Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
                [g ]Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
                [h ]Kintampo Health Research Centre, Kintampo, Ghana
                [i ]Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
                [j ]Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
                [k ]University of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Sabine Gabrysch, Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany sabine.gabrysch@ 123456uni-heidelberg.de
                Article
                S2214-109X(19)30165-2
                10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30165-2
                6639244
                31303295
                6da671e4-43b1-47f7-a669-383a3d131d87
                © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article