107
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis

      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

          Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. Although preterm survival rates have increased in high-income countries, preterm newborns still die because of a lack of adequate newborn care in many low-income and middle-income countries. We estimated global, regional, and national rates of preterm birth in 2014, with trends over time for some selected countries.

          Methods

          We systematically searched for data on preterm birth for 194 WHO Member States from 1990 to 2014 in databases of national civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS). We also searched for population-representative surveys and research studies for countries with no or limited CRVS data. For 38 countries with high-quality data for preterm births in 2014, data are reported directly. For countries with at least three data points between 1990 and 2014, we used a linear mixed regression model to estimate preterm birth rates. We also calculated regional and global estimates of preterm birth for 2014.

          Findings

          We identified 1241 data points across 107 countries. The estimated global preterm birth rate for 2014 was 10·6% (uncertainty interval 9·0–12·0), equating to an estimated 14·84 million (12·65 million–16·73 million) live preterm births in 2014. 12· 0 million (81·1%) of these preterm births occurred in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Regional preterm birth rates for 2014 ranged from 13·4% (6·3–30·9) in North Africa to 8·7% (6·3–13·3) in Europe. India, China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia accounted for 57·9 million (41×4%) of 139·9 million livebirths and 6·6 million (44×6%) of preterm births globally in 2014. Of the 38 countries with high-quality data, preterm birth rates have increased since 2000 in 26 countries and decreased in 12 countries. Globally, we estimated that the preterm birth rate was 9×8% (8×3–10×9) in 2000, and 10×6% (9×0–12×0) in 2014.

          Interpretation

          Preterm birth remains a crucial issue in child mortality and improving quality of maternal and newborn care. To better understand the epidemiology of preterm birth, the quality and volume of data needs to be improved, including standardisation of definitions, measurement, and reporting.

          Funding

          WHO and the March of Dimes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

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

          Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date.

          (2017)
          Accurate dating of pregnancy is important to improve outcomes and is a research and public health imperative. As soon as data from the last menstrual period, the first accurate ultrasound examination, or both are obtained, the gestational age and the estimated due date (EDD) should be determined, discussed with the patient, and documented clearly in the medical record. Subsequent changes to the EDD should be reserved for rare circumstances, discussed with the patient, and documented clearly in the medical record. A pregnancy without an ultrasound examination that confirms or revises the EDD before 22 0/7 weeks of gestational age should be considered suboptimally dated. When determined from the methods outlined in this document for estimating the due date, gestational age at delivery represents the best obstetric estimate for the purpose of clinical care and should be recorded on the birth certificate. For the purposes of research and surveillance, the best obstetric estimate, rather than estimates based on the last menstrual period alone, should be used as the measure for gestational age.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            ACOG Committee Opinion No 579: Definition of term pregnancy.

            (2013)
            In the past, the period from 3 weeks before until 2 weeks after the estimated date of delivery was considered "term," with the expectation that neonatal outcomes from deliveries in this interval were uniform and good. Increasingly, however, research has shown that neonatal outcomes, especially respiratory morbidity, vary depending on the timing of delivery within this 5-week gestational age range. To address this lack of uniformity, a work group was convened in late 2012, which recommended that the label "term" be replaced with the designations early term (37 0/7 weeks of gestation through 38 6/7 weeks of gestation), full term (39 0/7 weeks of gestation through 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), late term (41 0/7 weeks of gestation through 41 6/7 weeks of gestation), and postterm (42 0/7 weeks of gestation and beyond) to more accurately describe deliveries occurring at or beyond 37 0/7 weeks of gestation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine endorse and encourage the uniform use of the work group's recommended new gestational age designations by all clinicians, researchers, and public health officials to facilitate data reporting, delivery of quality health care, and clinical research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Maternal psychological distress and parenting stress after the birth of a very low-birth-weight infant.

              Few studies document how parents adapt to the experience of a very low-birth-weight (VLBW; 36 weeks, >2500 g). Standardized, normative self-report measures of maternal psychological distress, parenting stress, family impact, and life stressors. Mothers of VLBW infants (high risk, n = 122; low risk, n = 84) had more psychological distress than mothers of term infants (n=123) at 1 month (13% vs 1%; P = .003). At 2 years, mothers of low-risk VLBW infants did not differ from term mothers, while mothers of high-risk infants continued to report psychological distress. By 3 years, mothers of high-risk VLBW children did not differ from mothers of term children in distress symptoms, while parenting stress remained greater. Severity of maternal depression was related to lower child developmental outcomes in both VLBW groups. The impact of VLBW birth varies with child medical risk status, age, and developmental outcome. Follow-up programs should incorporate psychological screening and support services for mothers of VLBW infants in the immediate postnatal period, with monitoring of mothers of high-risk VLBW infants.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Glob Health
                Lancet Glob Health
                The Lancet. Global Health
                Elsevier Ltd
                2214-109X
                30 October 2018
                January 2019
                30 October 2018
                : 7
                : 1
                : e37-e46
                Affiliations
                [a ]Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                [b ]UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
                [c ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
                [d ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
                [e ]Health Metrics Unit, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
                [f ]School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [g ]Department of Information, Evidence and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland
                [h ]Joondalup Health Campus, Joondalup, WA, Australia
                [i ]Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
                [j ]Ministry of Education-Shanghai Key Laboratory of Children's Environmental Health, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Joshua P Vogel, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva, Switzerland vogeljo@ 123456who.int
                [†]

                Contributed equally

                Article
                S2214-109X(18)30451-0
                10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0
                6293055
                30389451
                929cff71-6c8d-4411-830a-888cde57e837
                © 2019 World Health Organization

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article