Kimberly Peven1,2, Lindsay Mallick3,4, Cath Taylor5, Debra Bick6, Louise T Day7, Lionel Kadzem8, Edward Purssell9. 1. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK. Kimberly.peven@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Maternal and Newborn Health Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Kimberly.peven@kcl.ac.uk. 3. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 4. Avenir Health, Glastonbury, CT, USA. 5. School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. 6. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 7. Maternal and Newborn Health Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 8. Ministry of Health, Yaoundé, Cameroon. 9. School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High coverage of care is essential to improving newborn survival; however, gaps exist in access to timely and appropriate newborn care between and within countries. In high mortality burden settings, health inequities due to social and economic factors may also impact on newborn outcomes. This study aimed to examine equity in co-coverage of newborn care interventions in low- and low middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. METHODS: We analysed secondary data from recent Demographic and Health Surveys in 16 countries. We created a co-coverage index of five newborn care interventions. We examined differences in coverage and co-coverage of newborn care interventions by country, place of birth, and wealth quintile. Using multilevel logistic regression, we examined the association between high co-coverage of newborn care (4 or 5 interventions) and social determinants of health. RESULTS: Coverage and co-coverage of newborn care showed large between- and within-country gaps for home and facility births, with important inequities based on individual, family, contextual, and structural factors. Wealth-based inequities were smaller amongst facility births compared to non-facility births. CONCLUSION: This analysis underlines the importance of facility birth for improved and more equitable newborn care. Shifting births to facilities, improving facility-based care, and community-based or pro-poor interventions are important to mitigate wealth-based inequities in newborn care, particularly in countries with large differences between the poorest and richest families and in countries with very low coverage of care.
BACKGROUND: High coverage of care is essential to improving newborn survival; however, gaps exist in access to timely and appropriate newborn care between and within countries. In high mortality burden settings, health inequities due to social and economic factors may also impact on newborn outcomes. This study aimed to examine equity in co-coverage of newborn care interventions in low- and low middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. METHODS: We analysed secondary data from recent Demographic and Health Surveys in 16 countries. We created a co-coverage index of five newborn care interventions. We examined differences in coverage and co-coverage of newborn care interventions by country, place of birth, and wealth quintile. Using multilevel logistic regression, we examined the association between high co-coverage of newborn care (4 or 5 interventions) and social determinants of health. RESULTS: Coverage and co-coverage of newborn care showed large between- and within-country gaps for home and facility births, with important inequities based on individual, family, contextual, and structural factors. Wealth-based inequities were smaller amongst facility births compared to non-facility births. CONCLUSION: This analysis underlines the importance of facility birth for improved and more equitable newborn care. Shifting births to facilities, improving facility-based care, and community-based or pro-poor interventions are important to mitigate wealth-based inequities in newborn care, particularly in countries with large differences between the poorest and richest families and in countries with very low coverage of care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health equity; Infant; Newborn; Postnatal care; Socioeconomic factors
Authors: Aluísio J D Barros; Carine Ronsmans; Henrik Axelson; Edilberto Loaiza; Andréa D Bertoldi; Giovanny V A França; Jennifer Bryce; J Ties Boerma; Cesar G Victora Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Jai K Das; Rajiv Bahl; Joy E Lawn; Rehana A Salam; Vinod K Paul; M Jeeva Sankar; Jeeva M Sankar; Hannah Blencowe; Arjumand Rizvi; Victoria B Chou; Neff Walker Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ӧ Tunçalp; W M Were; C MacLennan; O T Oladapo; A M Gülmezoglu; R Bahl; B Daelmans; M Mathai; L Say; F Kristensen; M Temmerman; F Bustreo Journal: BJOG Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Joseph de Graft-Johnson; Linda Vesel; Heather E Rosen; Barbara Rawlins; Stella Abwao; Goldy Mazia; Robert Bozsa; Winifrede Mwebesa; Neena Khadka; Rosemary Kamunya; Ashebir Getachew; Gaudiosa Tibaijuka; Jean Pierre Rakotovao; Alemnesh Tekleberhan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alem Desta Wuneh; Afework Mulugeta Bezabih; Yemisrach Behailu Okwaraji; Lars Åke Persson; Araya Abrha Medhanyie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Kimberly Peven; Louise Tina Day; Debra Bick; Edward Purssell; Cath Taylor; Joseph Akuze; Lindsay Mallick Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract Date: 2021-12-21
Authors: Ana Sílvia Scavacini Marinonio; Daniela Testoni Costa-Nobre; Milton Harumi Miyoshi; Rita de Cassia Xavier Balda; Kelsy Catherina Nema Areco; Tulio Konstantyner; Mandira Daripa Kawakami; Adriana Sanudo; Paulo Bandiera-Paiva; Rosa Maria Vieira de Freitas; Lilian Cristina Correia Morais; Mônica La Porte Teixeira; Bernadette Cunha Waldvogel; Maria Fernanda Branco de Almeida; Ruth Guinsburg; Carlos Roberto Veiga Kiffer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.135