Dataset Information

Where is the 'C' in antenatal care and postnatal care: A multi-country survey of availability of antenatal and postnatal care in low- and middle-income settings.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Antenatal (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) are logical entry points for prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related illness and to reduce perinatal mortality. We developed signal functions and assessed availability of the essential components of care.

Design

Cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Afghanistan, Chad, Ghana, Tanzania, Togo.

Sample

Three hundred and twenty-one healthcare facilities.

Methods

Fifteen essential components or signal functions of ANC and PNC were identified. Healthcare facility assessment for availability of each component, human resources, equipment, drugs and consumables required to provide each component.

Main outcome measure

Availability of ANC PNC components.

Results

Across all countries, healthcare providers are available (median number per facility: 8; interquartile range [IQR] 3-17) with a ratio of 3:1 for secondary versus primary care. Significantly more women attend for ANC than PNC (1668 versus 300 per facility/year). None of the healthcare facilities was able to provide all 15 essential components of ANC and PNC. The majority (>75%) could provide five components: diagnosis and management of syphilis, vaccination to prevent tetanus, BMI assessment, gestational diabetes screening, monitoring newborn growth. In Sub-Saharan countries, interventions for malaria and HIV (including prevention of mother to child transmission [PMTCT]) were available in 11.7-86.5% of facilities. Prevention and management of TB; assessment of pre- or post-term birth, fetal wellbeing, detection of multiple pregnancy, abnormal lie and presentation; screening and support for mental health and domestic abuse were provided in <25% of facilities.

Conclusions

Essential components of ANC and PNC are not in place. Focused attention on content is required if perinatal mortality and maternal morbidity during and after pregnancy are to be reduced.

Tweetable abstract

ANC and PNC are essential care bundles. We identified 15 core components. These are not in place in the majority of LMIC settings.

SUBMITTER: Madaj B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9541911 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Where is the 'C' in antenatal care and postnatal care: A multi-country survey of availability of antenatal and postnatal care in low- and middle-income settings.

Madaj Barbara B Gopalakrishnan Somasundari S Quach Alexandre A Filiaci Simone S Traore Adama A Bakusa Dankom D Mdegela Mselenge M Yousofzai Abdul Wali AW Rahmanzai Ahmed Javed AJ Kodindo Grace G Gami Jean-Pierre JP Rostand Njiki Dounou ND Kessely Hamit H Addo Stephen Ayisi SA Abbey Mercy M Sapali Mary M Omar Ali A Ernest Alex A Mtandu Rugola R Agossou Abram A Ketoh Guillaume K GK Furtado Nicholas N Mangiaterra Viviana V van den Broek Nynke N

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 20220217 9

<h4>Objective</h4>Antenatal (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) are logical entry points for prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related illness and to reduce perinatal mortality. We developed signal functions and assessed availability of the essential components of care.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional survey.<h4>Setting</h4>Afghanistan, Chad, Ghana, Tanzania, Togo.<h4>Sample</h4>Three hundred and twenty-one healthcare facilities.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifteen essential components or signal functions of AN ...[more]

PMID: 35106907

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:BackgroundImproving maternal health has been a primary goal of international health agencies for many years, with the aim of reducing maternal and child deaths and improving access to antenatal care (ANC) services, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Health interventions with these aims have received more attention from a clinical effectiveness perspective than for cost impact and economic efficiency.MethodsWe collected data on resource use and costs as part of a large, multi-country study assessing the use of routine antenatal screening ultrasound (US) with the aim of considering the implications for economic efficiency. We assessed typical antenatal outpatient and hospital-based (facility) care for pregnant women, in general, with selective complication-related data collection in women participating in a large maternal health registry and clinical trial in five LMICs. We estimated average costs from a facility/health system perspective for outpatient and inpatient services. We converted all country-level currency cost estimates to 2015 United States dollars (USD). We compared average costs across countries for ANC visits, deliveries, higher-risk pregnancies, and complications, and conducted sensitivity analyses.ResultsOur study included sites in five countries representing different regions. Overall, the relative cost of individual ANC and delivery-related healthcare use was consistent among countries, generally corresponding to country-specific income levels. ANC outpatient visit cost estimates per patient among countries ranged from 15 to 30 USD, based on average counts for visits with and without US. Estimates for antenatal screening US visits were more costly than non-US visits. Costs associated with higher-risk pregnancies were influenced by rates of hospital delivery by cesarean section (mean per person delivery cost estimate range: 25-65 USD).ConclusionsDespite substantial differences among countries in infrastructures and health system capacity, there were similarities in resource allocation, delivery location, and country-level challenges. Overall, there was no clear suggestion that adding antenatal screening US would result in either major cost savings or major cost increases. However, antenatal screening US would have higher training and maintenance costs. Given the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence and greater resource constraints of LMICs, it is unlikely that introducing antenatal screening US would be economically efficient in these settings--on the demand side (i.e., patients) or supply side (i.e., healthcare providers).Trial registrationTrial number: NCT01990625 (First posted: November 21, 2013 on https://clinicaltrials.gov ).

Project description:BackgroundTo improve care for patients with chronic diseases, a recent policy initiative in Thailand focused on strengthening primary care based on the concept of Chronic Care Model (CCM). This study aimed to assess the perception of patients about the health care services after the implementation.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 4071 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes registered with 27 primary care units and 11 hospital non-communicable diseases (NCDs) clinics in 11 provinces. The patients were interviewed using a validated questionnaire of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Upgraded primary care units (PCUs) were ordinary PCUs with the multi-professional team including a physician. Trained upgraded PCUs were upgraded PCUs with the training input. Structural equation modeling was used to create subscale scores for CCM and 5 A model characteristics. Mixed effect logistic models were employed to examine the association of subscales (high vs low score) of patient perception of the care quality with type of PCUs.ResultsCompared to hospital NCD clinics, ordinary PCUs were the best in the odds of receiving high score for every CCM subscale (ORs: 1.46-1.85; p < 0.05), whereas the trained upgraded PCUs were better in terms of follow-up (ORs:1.37; p < 0.05), and the upgraded PCU did not differ in all domains. According to the 5 A model subscales, patient assessment also revealed better performance of ordinary PCUs in all domains compared to hospital NCD clinics whereas upgraded PCUs and trained upgraded PCUs did so in some domains. Seeing the same doctor on repeated visits (ORs: 1.82-2.17; p < 0.05) or having phone contacts with the providers (ORs:1.53-1.99; p < 0.05) were found beneficial using CCM subscales and the 5A model subscales. However, patient assessment by both subscales did not demonstrate a statistically significant association across health insurance status.ConclusionsThe policy implementation might not satisfy the patients' perception on quality of chronic care according to the CCM and the 5A model subscale. However, the arrangement of chronic care with patients seeing the same doctors or patients having telephone contact with healthcare providers may satisfy the patients' perceived needs.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the rising burden of chronic respiratory disease globally, and although many respiratory medications are included in the World Health Organization Essential Medications List (WHO-EML), there is limited information concerning the availability and affordability of treatment drugs for respiratory conditions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsAll public and private pharmacies in catchment areas of the Global Excellence in COPD outcomes (GECo) study sites in Bhaktapur, Nepal, Lima, Peru, and Nakaseke, Uganda, were approached in 2017-2019 to assess pricing and availability of medications for the management of asthma and COPD.ResultsWe surveyed all 63 pharmacies in respective study areas in Nepal (95.2% private), 104 pharmacies in Peru (94.2% private) and 53 pharmacies in Uganda (98.1% private). The availability of any medication for respiratory disease was higher in private (93.3%) compared to public (73.3%) pharmacies. Salbutamol (WHO-EML) monotherapy in any formulation was the most commonly available respiratory medication among the three sites (93.7% Nepal, 86.5% Peru and 79.2% Uganda) while beclomethasone (WHO-EML) was only available in Peru (33.7%) and Nepal (22%). LABA-LAMA combination therapy was only available in Nepal (14.3% of pharmacies surveyed). The monthly treatment cost of respiratory medications was lowest in Nepal according to several cost metrics: the overall monthly cost, the median price ratio comparing medication costs to international reference prices at time of survey in dollars, and in terms of days' wages of the lowest-paid government worker. For the treatment of intermittent asthma, defined as 100 mcg Salbutamol/Albuterol inhaler, days' wages ranged from 0.47 days in Nepal and Peru to 3.33 days in Uganda.ConclusionThe availability and pricing of respiratory medications varied across LMIC settings, with medications for acute care of respiratory diseases being more widely available than those for long-term management.

Project description:BackgroundIn low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistical parameters, but they require data on how well each tool measures routine clinical care. We aim to synthesize the literature on validity/comparability of family planning process QoC measurement tools through a quantitative systematic review with no meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched six literature databases for studies that compared quality measurements from different tools using quantitative statistics such as sensitivity/specificity, kappa statistic or absolute difference. We extracted the comparative measure along with other relevant study information, organized by quality indicator domain (e.g. counseling and privacy), and then classified the measure by low, medium, and high agreement.ResultsWe screened 8172 articles and identified eight for analysis. Studies comparing quality measurements from simulated clients, direct observation, client exit interview, provider knowledge quizzes, and medical record review were included. These eight studies were heterogenous in their methods and the measurements compared. There was insufficient data to estimate overall summary measures of validity for the tools. Client exit interviews compared to direct observation or simulated client protocols had the most data and they were a poor proxy of the actual quality care received for many measurements.ConclusionTo measure QoC consistently and accurately in LMICs, standardized tools and measures are needed along with an established method of combining them for a comprehensive picture of quality care. Data on how different tools proxy quality client care will inform these guidelines. Despite the small number of studies found during the review, we described important differences on how tools measure quality of care.

Project description:ObjectivesIntegrated people-centred eye care has been recommended as a strategic framework for reducing global vision impairment and blindness. The extent to which eye care has integrated with other services has not been widely reported. We aimed to investigate approaches to integrating eye care service delivery with other systems in low resource settings, and identify factors associated with integration.DesignRapid scoping review based on Cochrane Rapid Review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched in September 2021.Eligibility criteriaPapers with interventions involving eye care or preventative eye care integrated into other health systems, peer-reviewed in English, conducted in low-income or middle-income countries, and published between January 2011 and September 2021 were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened, quality appraised and coded included papers. A deductive-inductive iterative analysis approach was used with a focus on integrating service delivery.ResultsThe search identified 3889 potential papers, of which 24 were included. Twenty papers incorporated more than one intervention type (promotion, prevention and/or treatment), but none included rehabilitation. Most articles involved human resources development yet rarely appeared to be people-centred. The level of integration was associated with building relationships and enhancing service coordination. Integrating human resources was challenged by the need for ongoing support and worker retention. In primary care settings, workers were often already at full capacity, had competing priorities, varying capabilities and limited motivation. Additional barriers included inadequate referral and information systems, poor supply chain management and procurement practices and finite financing.ConclusionIntegrating eye care into low resource health systems is a challenging task, compounded by resource limitations, competing priorities and ongoing support needs. This review highlighted a need for people-centred approaches to future interventions, and further investigation into integrating vision rehabilitation services.

Project description:Person-centeredness is a foundation of high-quality health systems but is poorly measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We piloted an online survey of four LMICs to identify the prevalence and correlates of excellent patient-reported quality of care (QOC). The aims of this study were to investigate the examine people's overall ratings of care quality in relation to their experiences seeking care in their respective health systems as well as individual-, provider- and facility-level predictors. We administered a cross-sectional online survey using Random Domain Intercept Technology to collect a sample of random internet users across India, Kenya, Mexico and Nigeria in November 2016. The primary outcome was patient-reported QOC. Covariates included age, gender, level of education, urban/rural residence, person for whom care was sought, type of provider seen, public or private sector status of the health facility and type of facility. The exposure was an index of health system responsiveness based on a framework from the World Health Organization. We used descriptive statistics to determine the prevalence of excellent patient-reported QOC and multivariable Poisson regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for predictors of excellent patient-reported quality. Fourteen thousand and eight people completed the survey (22.6% completion rate). Survey respondents tended to be young, male, well-educated and urban-dwelling, reflective of the demographic of the internet-using population. Four thousand one and ninety-one (29.9%) respondents sought care in the prior 6 months. Of those, 21.8% rated their QOC as excellent. The highest proportion of respondents gave the top rating for wait time (44.6%), while the lowest proportion gave the top rating for facility cleanliness (21.7%). In an adjusted analysis, people who experienced the highest level of health system responsiveness were significantly more likely to report excellent QOC compared to those who did not (aPR 8.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.50, 9.89). In the adjusted model, urban-dwelling individuals were less likely to report excellent quality compared to rural-dwelling individuals (aPR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.99). People who saw community health workers (aPR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.67) and specialists (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.50) were more likely to report excellent quality than those who saw primary care providers. High perceived respect from the provider or staff was most highly associated with excellent ratings of quality, while ratings of wait time corresponded the least. Patient-reported QOC is low in four LMICs, even among a well-educated, young population of internet users. Better health system responsiveness may be associated with better ratings of care quality. Improving person-centered care will be an important component of building high-quality health systems in these LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundMissed nursing care undermines nursing standards of care and minimising this phenomenon is crucial to maintaining adequate patient safety and the quality of patient care. The concept is a neglected aspect of human resource for health thinking, and it remains understudied in low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) settings which have 90% of the global nursing workforce shortages. Our objective in this review was to document the prevalence of missed nursing care in LMIC, identify the categories of nursing care that are most missed and summarise the reasons for this.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, WHO Global index medicus and CINAHL from their inception up until August 2021. Publications were included if they were conducted in an LMIC and reported on any combination of categories, reasons and factors associated with missed nursing care within in-patient settings. We assessed the quality of studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.ResultsThirty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies were mainly cross-sectional, from upper middle-income settings and mostly relied on nurses' self-report of missed nursing care. The measurement tools used, and their reporting were inconsistent across the literature. Nursing care most frequently missed were non-clinical nursing activities including those of comfort and communication. Inadequate personnel numbers were the most important reasons given for missed care.ConclusionsMissed nursing care is reported for all key nursing task areas threatening care quality and safety. Data suggest nurses prioritise technical activities with more non-clinical activities missed, this undermines holistic nursing care. Improving staffing levels seems a key intervention potentially including sharing of less skilled activities. More research on missed nursing care and interventions to tackle it to improve quality and safety is needed in LMIC. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021286897.

Dataset Information

Where is the 'C' in antenatal care and postnatal care: A multi-country survey of availability of antenatal and postnatal care in low- and middle-income settings.

Objective

Design

Setting

Sample

Methods

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Tweetable abstract

Publications

Where is the 'C' in antenatal care and postnatal care: A multi-country survey of availability of antenatal and postnatal care in low- and middle-income settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets