Cargando…

Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our investigation was to estimate the perinatal mortality rate among institutional births and to compare the sensitivities of different data collection methods. SETTING: A hospital-based prospective cohort study was undertaken during late-2012 in 21 public sector health f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mony, Prem K, Varghese, Beena, Thomas, Tinku
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25783418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005966
_version_ 1782362719380307968
author Mony, Prem K
Varghese, Beena
Thomas, Tinku
author_facet Mony, Prem K
Varghese, Beena
Thomas, Tinku
author_sort Mony, Prem K
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The objective of our investigation was to estimate the perinatal mortality rate among institutional births and to compare the sensitivities of different data collection methods. SETTING: A hospital-based prospective cohort study was undertaken during late-2012 in 21 public sector health facilities of 10 districts of the northern state of Rajasthan, India. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6872 births were included in this epidemiological study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Perinatal mortality rate of institutional births was the primary outcome. Sensitivities of ‘active’ and passive’ data collection methods were the secondary outcome measures. METHODS: All stillbirth data were from routine government records (‘passive system’); early neonatal outcome data from government records (‘passive’) were compared against the method of ‘phone-tracking’ of outcomes through the community health worker (‘active system’). The Lincoln-Petersen formula for capture-recapture method was used to calculate the probable missing number of early neonatal deaths and thereby estimate the institutional perinatal mortality rate. RESULTS: Ratio of births in district:subdistrict facilities was 55:45. The estimated perinatal mortality rate (95% CI) by capture–recapture method was 35.8 (34 to 37) per 1000 births. The sensitivity of the passive system was 87–89% while the sensitivity of the active system was 91%. Three-fourths of perinatal deaths were documented as stillbirths. However, for these reported intrauterine deaths or stillbirths, clinical classification by typologies (term vs preterm; intrapartum vs antepartum; macerated vs fresh; with or without congenital anomalies) was absent in the recording system. CONCLUSIONS: Capture–recapture technique can be used to estimate the institutional perinatal mortality rate and also to assess the level of under-reporting by the ‘passive’ government reporting system. This can subsequently be used for monitoring of trends and studying the impact of health interventions. Accurate clinical categorisation of perinatal deaths is also recommended for improving quality of care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4369003
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43690032015-03-26 Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique Mony, Prem K Varghese, Beena Thomas, Tinku BMJ Open Epidemiology OBJECTIVE: The objective of our investigation was to estimate the perinatal mortality rate among institutional births and to compare the sensitivities of different data collection methods. SETTING: A hospital-based prospective cohort study was undertaken during late-2012 in 21 public sector health facilities of 10 districts of the northern state of Rajasthan, India. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6872 births were included in this epidemiological study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Perinatal mortality rate of institutional births was the primary outcome. Sensitivities of ‘active’ and passive’ data collection methods were the secondary outcome measures. METHODS: All stillbirth data were from routine government records (‘passive system’); early neonatal outcome data from government records (‘passive’) were compared against the method of ‘phone-tracking’ of outcomes through the community health worker (‘active system’). The Lincoln-Petersen formula for capture-recapture method was used to calculate the probable missing number of early neonatal deaths and thereby estimate the institutional perinatal mortality rate. RESULTS: Ratio of births in district:subdistrict facilities was 55:45. The estimated perinatal mortality rate (95% CI) by capture–recapture method was 35.8 (34 to 37) per 1000 births. The sensitivity of the passive system was 87–89% while the sensitivity of the active system was 91%. Three-fourths of perinatal deaths were documented as stillbirths. However, for these reported intrauterine deaths or stillbirths, clinical classification by typologies (term vs preterm; intrapartum vs antepartum; macerated vs fresh; with or without congenital anomalies) was absent in the recording system. CONCLUSIONS: Capture–recapture technique can be used to estimate the institutional perinatal mortality rate and also to assess the level of under-reporting by the ‘passive’ government reporting system. This can subsequently be used for monitoring of trends and studying the impact of health interventions. Accurate clinical categorisation of perinatal deaths is also recommended for improving quality of care. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4369003/ /pubmed/25783418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005966 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Mony, Prem K
Varghese, Beena
Thomas, Tinku
Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique
title Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique
title_full Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique
title_fullStr Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique
title_full_unstemmed Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique
title_short Estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in Rajasthan state, India, using capture–recapture technique
title_sort estimation of perinatal mortality rate for institutional births in rajasthan state, india, using capture–recapture technique
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369003/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25783418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005966
work_keys_str_mv AT monypremk estimationofperinatalmortalityrateforinstitutionalbirthsinrajasthanstateindiausingcapturerecapturetechnique
AT varghesebeena estimationofperinatalmortalityrateforinstitutionalbirthsinrajasthanstateindiausingcapturerecapturetechnique
AT thomastinku estimationofperinatalmortalityrateforinstitutionalbirthsinrajasthanstateindiausingcapturerecapturetechnique