| 1. |
- KC, Ashish, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
Neonatal resuscitation: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC pregnancy and childbirth. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2393. ; 21:Suppl 1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Annually, 14 million newborns require stimulation to initiate breathing at birth and 6 million require bag-mask-ventilation (BMV). Many countries have invested in facility-based neonatal resuscitation equipment and training. However, there is no consistent tracking for neonatal resuscitation coverage.The EN-BIRTH study, in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania (2017-2018), collected time-stamped data for care around birth, including neonatal resuscitation. Researchers surveyed women and extracted data from routine labour ward registers. To assess accuracy, we compared gold standard observed coverage to survey-reported and register-recorded coverage, using absolute difference, validity ratios, and individual-level validation metrics (sensitivity, specificity, percent agreement). We analysed two resuscitation numerators (stimulation, BMV) and three denominators (live births and fresh stillbirths, non-crying, non-breathing). We also examined timeliness of BMV. Qualitative data were collected from health workers and data collectors regarding barriers and enablers to routine recording of resuscitation.Among 22,752 observed births, 5330 (23.4%) babies did not cry and 3860 (17.0%) did not breathe in the first minute after birth. 16.2% (n = 3688) of babies were stimulated and 4.4% (n = 998) received BMV. Survey-report underestimated coverage of stimulation and BMV. Four of five labour ward registers captured resuscitation numerators. Stimulation had variable accuracy (sensitivity 7.5-40.8%, specificity 66.8-99.5%), BMV accuracy was higher (sensitivity 12.4-48.4%, specificity > 93%), with small absolute differences between observed and recorded BMV. Accuracy did not vary by denominator option. < 1% of BMV was initiated within 1 min of birth. Enablers to register recording included training and data use while barriers included register design, documentation burden, and time pressure.Population-based surveys are unlikely to be useful for measuring resuscitation coverage given low validity of exit-survey report. Routine labour ward registers have potential to accurately capture BMV as the numerator. Measuring the true denominator for clinical need is complex; newborns may require BMV if breathing ineffectively or experiencing apnoea after initial drying/stimulation or subsequently at any time. Further denominator research is required to evaluate non-crying as a potential alternative in the context of respectful care. Measuring quality gaps, notably timely provision of resuscitation, is crucial for programme improvement and impact, but unlikely to be feasible in routine systems, requiring audits and special studies.
|
|
| 2. |
- Tahsina, Tazeen, et al.
(författare)
-
EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study : EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2393 .- 1471-2393. ; 21:SUPPL
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundImmediate newborn care (INC) practices, notably early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF), are fundamental for newborn health. However, coverage tracking currently relies on household survey data in many settings. "Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals" (EN-BIRTH) was an observational study validating selected maternal and newborn health indicators. This paper reports results for EIBF.MethodsThe EN-BIRTH study was conducted in five public hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania, from July 2017 to July 2018. Clinical observers collected tablet-based, time-stamped data on EIBF and INC practices (skin-to-skin within 1h of birth, drying, and delayed cord clamping). To assess validity of EIBF measurement, we compared observation as gold standard to register records and women's exit-interview survey reports. Percent agreement was used to assess agreement between EIBF and INC practices. Kaplan Meier survival curves showed timing. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explore barriers/enablers to register recording.ResultsCoverage of EIBF among 7802 newborns observed for >= 1h was low (10.9, 95% CI 3.8-21.0). Survey-reported (53.2, 95% CI 39.4-66.8) and register-recorded results (85.9, 95% CI 58.1-99.6) overestimated coverage compared to observed levels across all hospitals. Registers did not capture other INC practices apart from breastfeeding. Agreement of EIBF with other INC practices was high for skin-to-skin (69.5-93.9%) at four sites, but fair/poor for delayed cord-clamping (47.3-73.5%) and drying (7.3-29.0%). EIBF and skin-to-skin were the most delayed and EIBF rarely happened after caesarean section (0.5-3.6%). Qualitative findings suggested that focusing on accuracy, as well as completeness, contributes to higher quality with register reporting.ConclusionsOur study highlights the importance of tracking EIBF despite measurement challenges and found low coverage levels, particularly after caesarean births. Both survey-reported and register-recorded data over-estimated coverage. EIBF had a strong agreement with skin-to-skin but is not a simple tracer for other INC indicators. Other INC practices are challenging to measure in surveys, not included in registers, and are likely to require special studies or audits. Continued focus on EIBF is crucial to inform efforts to improve provider practices and increase coverage. Investment and innovation are required to improve measurement.
|
|
| 3. |
- Tahsina, Tazeen, et al.
(författare)
-
Immediate newborn care and breastfeeding: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC pregnancy and childbirth. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2393. ; 21:Suppl 1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Immediate newborn care (INC) practices, notably early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF), are fundamental for newborn health. However, coverage tracking currently relies on household survey data in many settings. "Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals" (EN-BIRTH) was an observational study validating selected maternal and newborn health indicators. This paper reports results for EIBF.The EN-BIRTH study was conducted in five public hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania, from July 2017 to July 2018. Clinical observers collected tablet-based, time-stamped data on EIBF and INC practices (skin-to-skin within 1 h of birth, drying, and delayed cord clamping). To assess validity of EIBF measurement, we compared observation as gold standard to register records and women's exit-interview survey reports. Percent agreement was used to assess agreement between EIBF and INC practices. Kaplan Meier survival curves showed timing. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explore barriers/enablers to register recording.Coverage of EIBF among 7802 newborns observed for ≥1 h was low (10.9, 95% CI 3.8-21.0). Survey-reported (53.2, 95% CI 39.4-66.8) and register-recorded results (85.9, 95% CI 58.1-99.6) overestimated coverage compared to observed levels across all hospitals. Registers did not capture other INC practices apart from breastfeeding. Agreement of EIBF with other INC practices was high for skin-to-skin (69.5-93.9%) at four sites, but fair/poor for delayed cord-clamping (47.3-73.5%) and drying (7.3-29.0%). EIBF and skin-to-skin were the most delayed and EIBF rarely happened after caesarean section (0.5-3.6%). Qualitative findings suggested that focusing on accuracy, as well as completeness, contributes to higher quality with register reporting.Our study highlights the importance of tracking EIBF despite measurement challenges and found low coverage levels, particularly after caesarean births. Both survey-reported and register-recorded data over-estimated coverage. EIBF had a strong agreement with skin-to-skin but is not a simple tracer for other INC indicators. Other INC practices are challenging to measure in surveys, not included in registers, and are likely to require special studies or audits. Continued focus on EIBF is crucial to inform efforts to improve provider practices and increase coverage. Investment and innovation are required to improve measurement.
|
|
