Harriet Ruysen1, Josephine Shabani2, Allisyn C Moran3, Joy E Lawn4, Claudia Hanson5, Louise T Day4, Andrea B Pembe6, Kimberly Peven4,7, Qazi Sadeq-Ur Rahman8, Nishant Thakur9, Kizito Shirima2, Tazeen Tahsina8, Rejina Gurung9, Menna Narcis Tarimo2. 1. Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK. Harriet.Ruysen@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Systems, Impact Evaluation and Policy, Ifakara Health Institute (IHI), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. 3. Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK. 5. Public Health Sciences - Global Health - Health Systems and Policy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS), Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. 7. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK. 8. Maternal and Child Health Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh. 9. Research division, Golden Community, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of preventable maternal mortality worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends uterotonic administration for every woman after birth to prevent PPH. There are no standardised data collected in large-scale measurement platforms. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) is an observational study to assess the validity of measurement of maternal and newborn indicators, and this paper reports findings regarding measurement of coverage and quality for uterotonics. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study took place in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania, from July 2017 to July 2018. Clinical observers collected tablet-based, time-stamped data. We compared observation data for uterotonics to routine hospital register-records and women's report at exit-interview survey. We analysed the coverage and quality gap for timing and dose of administration. The register design was evaluated against gap analyses and qualitative interview data assessing the barriers and enablers to data recording and use. RESULTS: Observed uterotonic coverage was high in all five hospitals (> 99%, 95% CI 98.7-99.8%). Survey-report underestimated coverage (79.5 to 91.7%). "Don't know" replies varied (2.1 to 14.4%) and were higher after caesarean (3.7 to 59.3%). Overall, there was low accuracy in survey data for details of uterotonic administration (type and timing). Register-recorded coverage varied in four hospitals capturing uterotonics in a specific column (21.6, 64.5, 97.6, 99.4%). The average coverage measurement gap was 18.1% for register-recorded and 6.0% for survey-reported coverage. Uterotonics were given to 15.9% of women within the "right time" (1 min) and 69.8% within 3 min. Women's report of knowing the purpose of uterotonics after birth ranged from 0.4 to 64.9% between hospitals. Enabling register design and adequate staffing were reported to improve routine recording. CONCLUSIONS: Routine registers have potential to track uterotonic coverage - register data were highly accurate in two EN-BIRTH hospitals, compared to consistently underestimated coverage by survey-report. Although uterotonic coverage was high, there were gaps in observed quality for timing and dose. Standardisation of register design and implementation could improve data quality and data flow from registers into health management information reporting systems, and requires further assessment.
BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of preventable maternal mortality worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends uterotonic administration for every woman after birth to prevent PPH. There are no standardised data collected in large-scale measurement platforms. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) is an observational study to assess the validity of measurement of maternal and newborn indicators, and this paper reports findings regarding measurement of coverage and quality for uterotonics. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study took place in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania, from July 2017 to July 2018. Clinical observers collected tablet-based, time-stamped data. We compared observation data for uterotonics to routine hospital register-records and women's report at exit-interview survey. We analysed the coverage and quality gap for timing and dose of administration. The register design was evaluated against gap analyses and qualitative interview data assessing the barriers and enablers to data recording and use. RESULTS:Observed uterotonic coverage was high in all five hospitals (> 99%, 95% CI 98.7-99.8%). Survey-report underestimated coverage (79.5 to 91.7%). "Don't know" replies varied (2.1 to 14.4%) and were higher after caesarean (3.7 to 59.3%). Overall, there was low accuracy in survey data for details of uterotonic administration (type and timing). Register-recorded coverage varied in four hospitals capturing uterotonics in a specific column (21.6, 64.5, 97.6, 99.4%). The average coverage measurement gap was 18.1% for register-recorded and 6.0% for survey-reported coverage. Uterotonics were given to 15.9% of women within the "right time" (1 min) and 69.8% within 3 min. Women's report of knowing the purpose of uterotonics after birth ranged from 0.4 to 64.9% between hospitals. Enabling register design and adequate staffing were reported to improve routine recording. CONCLUSIONS: Routine registers have potential to track uterotonic coverage - register data were highly accurate in two EN-BIRTH hospitals, compared to consistently underestimated coverage by survey-report. Although uterotonic coverage was high, there were gaps in observed quality for timing and dose. Standardisation of register design and implementation could improve data quality and data flow from registers into health management information reporting systems, and requires further assessment.
Authors: Sarah G Moxon; Harriet Ruysen; Kate J Kerber; Agbessi Amouzou; Suzanne Fournier; John Grove; Allisyn C Moran; Lara M E Vaz; Hannah Blencowe; Niall Conroy; A Gülmezoglu; Joshua P Vogel; Barbara Rawlins; Rubayet Sayed; Kathleen Hill; Donna Vivio; Shamim A Qazi; Deborah Sitrin; Anna C Seale; Steve Wall; Troy Jacobs; Juan Ruiz Peláez; Tanya Guenther; Patricia S Coffey; Penny Dawson; Tanya Marchant; Peter Waiswa; Ashok Deorari; Christabel Enweronu-Laryea; Shams Arifeen; Anne C C Lee; Matthews Mathai; Joy E Lawn Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Jim Ricca; Vikas Dwivedi; John Varallo; Gajendra Singh; Suranjeen Prasad Pallipamula; Nazir Amade; Maria de Luz Vaz; Dustan Bishanga; Marya Plotkin; Bushra Al-Makaleh; Stephanie Suhowatsky; Jeffrey Michael Smith Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sarah Gimbel; Moses Mwanza; Marie Paul Nisingizwe; Cathy Michel; Lisa Hirschhorn Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Melinda K Munos; Ann K Blanc; Emily D Carter; Thomas P Eisele; Steve Gesuale; Joanne Katz; Tanya Marchant; Cynthia K Stanton; Harry Campbell Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Antoinette Alas Bhattacharya; Nasir Umar; Ahmed Audu; Habila Felix; Elizabeth Allen; Joanna R M Schellenberg; Tanya Marchant Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240