Cargando…

Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study

BACKGROUND: Household surveys remain important sources of stillbirth data, but omission and misclassification are common. Classifying adverse pregnancy outcomes as stillbirths requires accurate reporting of vital status at birth and gestational age or birthweight for every pregnancy. Further categor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blencowe, Hannah, Bottecchia, Matteo, Kwesiga, Doris, Akuze, Joseph, Haider, M. Moinuddin, Galiwango, Edward, Dzabeng, Francis, Fisker, Ane B., Enuameh, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi, Geremew, Bisrat Misganaw, Nareeba, Tryphena, Woodd, Susannah, Beedle, Alexandra, Peven, Kimberly, Cousens, Simon, Waiswa, Peter, Lawn, Joy E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7869203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33557841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00239-8
_version_ 1783648581826117632
author Blencowe, Hannah
Bottecchia, Matteo
Kwesiga, Doris
Akuze, Joseph
Haider, M. Moinuddin
Galiwango, Edward
Dzabeng, Francis
Fisker, Ane B.
Enuameh, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi
Geremew, Bisrat Misganaw
Nareeba, Tryphena
Woodd, Susannah
Beedle, Alexandra
Peven, Kimberly
Cousens, Simon
Waiswa, Peter
Lawn, Joy E.
author_facet Blencowe, Hannah
Bottecchia, Matteo
Kwesiga, Doris
Akuze, Joseph
Haider, M. Moinuddin
Galiwango, Edward
Dzabeng, Francis
Fisker, Ane B.
Enuameh, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi
Geremew, Bisrat Misganaw
Nareeba, Tryphena
Woodd, Susannah
Beedle, Alexandra
Peven, Kimberly
Cousens, Simon
Waiswa, Peter
Lawn, Joy E.
author_sort Blencowe, Hannah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Household surveys remain important sources of stillbirth data, but omission and misclassification are common. Classifying adverse pregnancy outcomes as stillbirths requires accurate reporting of vital status at birth and gestational age or birthweight for every pregnancy. Further categorisation, e.g. by sex, or timing (intrapartum/antepartum) improves data to understand and prevent stillbirth. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional population-based survey of women of reproductive age in five health and demographic surveillance system sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017–2018). All women answered a full birth history with pregnancy loss questions (FBH+) or a full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample across both groups were asked additional stillbirth questions. Questions were evaluated using descriptive measures. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, focus group discussions with women exploring barriers to reporting birthweight for stillbirths were conducted. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook. RESULTS: Overall 69,176 women reported 98,483 livebirths (FBH+) and 102,873 pregnancies (FPH). Additional questions were asked for 1453 stillbirths, 1528 neonatal deaths and 12,620 surviving children born in the 5 years prior to the survey. Completeness was high (> 99%) for existing FBH+/FPH questions on signs of life at birth and gestational age (months). Discordant responses in signs of life at birth between different questions were common; nearly one-quarter classified as stillbirths on FBH+/FPH were reported born alive on additional questions. Availability of information on gestational age (weeks) (58.1%) and birthweight (13.2%) was low amongst stillbirths, and heaping was common. Most women (93.9%) were able to report the sex of their stillborn baby. Response completeness for stillbirth timing (18.3–95.1%) and estimated proportion intrapartum (15.6–90.0%) varied by question and site. Congenital malformations were reported in 3.1% stillbirths. Perceived value in weighing a stillborn baby varied and barriers to weighing at birth a nd knowing birthweight were common. CONCLUSIONS: Improving stillbirth data in surveys will require investment in improving the measurement of vital status, gestational age and birthweight by healthcare providers, communication of these with women, and overcoming reporting barriers. Given the large burden and effect on families, improved data must be made available to end preventable stillbirths. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12963-020-00239-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7869203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78692032021-02-08 Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study Blencowe, Hannah Bottecchia, Matteo Kwesiga, Doris Akuze, Joseph Haider, M. Moinuddin Galiwango, Edward Dzabeng, Francis Fisker, Ane B. Enuameh, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi Geremew, Bisrat Misganaw Nareeba, Tryphena Woodd, Susannah Beedle, Alexandra Peven, Kimberly Cousens, Simon Waiswa, Peter Lawn, Joy E. Popul Health Metr Research BACKGROUND: Household surveys remain important sources of stillbirth data, but omission and misclassification are common. Classifying adverse pregnancy outcomes as stillbirths requires accurate reporting of vital status at birth and gestational age or birthweight for every pregnancy. Further categorisation, e.g. by sex, or timing (intrapartum/antepartum) improves data to understand and prevent stillbirth. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional population-based survey of women of reproductive age in five health and demographic surveillance system sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017–2018). All women answered a full birth history with pregnancy loss questions (FBH+) or a full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample across both groups were asked additional stillbirth questions. Questions were evaluated using descriptive measures. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, focus group discussions with women exploring barriers to reporting birthweight for stillbirths were conducted. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook. RESULTS: Overall 69,176 women reported 98,483 livebirths (FBH+) and 102,873 pregnancies (FPH). Additional questions were asked for 1453 stillbirths, 1528 neonatal deaths and 12,620 surviving children born in the 5 years prior to the survey. Completeness was high (> 99%) for existing FBH+/FPH questions on signs of life at birth and gestational age (months). Discordant responses in signs of life at birth between different questions were common; nearly one-quarter classified as stillbirths on FBH+/FPH were reported born alive on additional questions. Availability of information on gestational age (weeks) (58.1%) and birthweight (13.2%) was low amongst stillbirths, and heaping was common. Most women (93.9%) were able to report the sex of their stillborn baby. Response completeness for stillbirth timing (18.3–95.1%) and estimated proportion intrapartum (15.6–90.0%) varied by question and site. Congenital malformations were reported in 3.1% stillbirths. Perceived value in weighing a stillborn baby varied and barriers to weighing at birth a nd knowing birthweight were common. CONCLUSIONS: Improving stillbirth data in surveys will require investment in improving the measurement of vital status, gestational age and birthweight by healthcare providers, communication of these with women, and overcoming reporting barriers. Given the large burden and effect on families, improved data must be made available to end preventable stillbirths. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12963-020-00239-8. BioMed Central 2021-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7869203/ /pubmed/33557841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00239-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Blencowe, Hannah
Bottecchia, Matteo
Kwesiga, Doris
Akuze, Joseph
Haider, M. Moinuddin
Galiwango, Edward
Dzabeng, Francis
Fisker, Ane B.
Enuameh, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi
Geremew, Bisrat Misganaw
Nareeba, Tryphena
Woodd, Susannah
Beedle, Alexandra
Peven, Kimberly
Cousens, Simon
Waiswa, Peter
Lawn, Joy E.
Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study
title Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study
title_full Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study
title_fullStr Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study
title_full_unstemmed Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study
title_short Stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study
title_sort stillbirth outcome capture and classification in population-based surveys: en-indepth study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7869203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33557841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00239-8
work_keys_str_mv AT blencowehannah stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT bottecchiamatteo stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT kwesigadoris stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT akuzejoseph stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT haidermmoinuddin stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT galiwangoedward stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT dzabengfrancis stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT fiskeraneb stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT enuamehyeeteyakpekwesi stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT geremewbisratmisganaw stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT nareebatryphena stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT wooddsusannah stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT beedlealexandra stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT pevenkimberly stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT cousenssimon stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT waiswapeter stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT lawnjoye stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy
AT stillbirthoutcomecaptureandclassificationinpopulationbasedsurveysenindepthstudy