9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Community-based maternal and newborn educational care packages for improving neonatal health and survival in low- and middle-income countries

      1 , 2 , 3
      Cochrane Neonatal Group
      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), health services are under‐utilised, and several studies have reported improvements in neonatal outcomes following health education imparted to mothers in homes, at health units, or in hospitals. However, evaluating health educational strategy to deliver newborn care, such as one‐to‐one counselling or group counselling via peer or support groups, or delivered by health professionals, requires rigorous assessment of methodological design and quality, as well as assessment of cost‐effectiveness, affordability, sustainability, and reproducibility in diverse health systems. To compare a community health educational strategy versus no strategy or the existing approach to health education on maternal and newborn care in LMICs, as imparted to mothers or their family members specifically in community settings during the antenatal and/or postnatal period, in terms of effectiveness for improving neonatal health and survival (i.e. neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, access to health care, and cost). We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 May 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 May 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2 May 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi‐randomised trials. Community‐based randomised controlled, cluster‐randomised, or quasi‐randomised controlled trials. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method and prepared 'Summary of findings' tables. We included in this review 33 original trials (reported in 62 separate articles), which were conducted across Africa and Central and South America, with most reported from Asia, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 33 community educational interventions provided, 16 included family members in educational counselling, most frequently the mother‐in‐law or the expectant father. Most studies (n = 14) required one‐to‐one counselling between a healthcare worker and a mother, and 12 interventions involved group counselling for mothers and occasionally family members; the remaining seven incorporated components of both counselling methods. Our analyses show that community health educational interventions had a significant impact on reducing overall neonatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.96; random‐effects model; 26 studies; n = 553,111; I² = 88%; very low‐quality evidence), early neonatal mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84; random‐effects model; 15 studies that included 3 subsets from 3 studies; n = 321,588; I² = 86%; very low‐quality evidence), late neonatal mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; random‐effects model; 11 studies; n = 186,643; I² = 88%; very low‐quality evidence), and perinatal mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.91; random‐effects model; 15 studies; n = 262,613; I² = 81%; very low‐quality evidence). Moreover, community health educational interventions increased utilisation of any antenatal care (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22; random‐effects model; 18 studies; n = 307,528; I² = 96%) and initiation of breastfeeding (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.77; random‐effects model; 19 studies; n = 126,375; I² = 99%). In contrast, community health educational interventions were found to have a non‐significant impact on use of modern contraceptives (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.41; random‐effects model; 3 studies; n = 22,237; I² = 80%); presence of skilled birth attendance at birth (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.25; random‐effects model; 10 studies; n = 117,870; I² = 97%); utilisation of clean delivery kits (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.71 to 27.76; random‐effects model; 2 studies; n = 17,087; I² = 98%); and care‐seeking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27; random‐effects model; 7 studies; n = 46,154; I² = 93%). Cost‐effectiveness analysis conducted in seven studies demonstrated that the cost‐effectiveness for intervention packages ranged between USD 910 and USD 11,975 for newborn lives saved and newborn deaths averted. For averted disability‐adjusted life‐year, costs ranged from USD 79 to USD 146, depending on the intervention strategy; for cost per year of lost lives averted, the most effective strategy was peer counsellors, and the cost was USD 33. This review offers encouraging evidence on the value of integrating packages of interventions with educational components delivered by a range of community workers in group settings in LMICs, with groups consisting of mothers, and additional education for family members, for improved neonatal survival, especially early and late neonatal survival. Community‐based maternal and newborn educational care packages for improving neonatal health and survival in low‐ and middle‐income countries Review question Is community health educational intervention for newborn care effective in improving neonatal health and survival in low‐ and middle‐income countries? Background In low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), health service utilisation is low and neonatal mortality and morbidity are high. However, improvements in neonatal outcomes have been documented in several studies with simple health educational interventions. This review assessed the effectiveness of health education strategies imparted to mothers or their family members in community settings of LMICs. It also assessed the impact of health education strategies on neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, access to health care, and cost. Study characteristics A total of 33 experimental studies were conducted across Africa and Central and South America, with most reported from Asia, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 33 community educational interventions, 16 required involvement of family members, most frequently the mother‐in‐law or the expectant father. Most studies (n = 14) involved one‐to‐one counselling between a range of community healthcare workers and mothers, and 12 involved group counselling consisting predominantly of mothers, with family members included occasionally; the remaining seven had components of both one‐to‐one and group counselling. Key results This review found that community health educational interventions significantly reduced newborn death, early newborn mortality, and late newborn mortality, as well as perinatal mortality. These interventions also positively impacted utilisation of any before birth (antenatal), care during pregnancy, and initiation of breastfeeding within an hour after birth. The review shows that educational interventions delivered to both mothers and other family members in a group setting had a greater impact on these outcomes. Educational interventions delivered during antenatal care were more effective for reducing early neonatal deaths, and those delivered during both antenatal and postnatal (after birth) periods were effective for reducing late neonatal deaths and perinatal deaths. Educational interventions during the postnatal period were most effective for improving breastfeeding practices. Quality of evidence The quality of evidence is low for newborn mortality outcomes and very low for early, late, and perinatal mortality. This reflects concerns of bias, inconsistency (unexplained variability of results), and imprecision (variation in studies presenting both benefit and harm from the intervention) of the included randomised controlled trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references147

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of community-based newborn-care intervention package implemented through two service-delivery strategies in Sylhet district, Bangladesh: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

          Neonatal mortality accounts for a high proportion of deaths in children under the age of 5 years in Bangladesh. Therefore the project for advancing the health of newborns and mothers (Projahnmo) implemented a community-based intervention package through government and non-government organisation infrastructures to reduce neonatal mortality. In Sylhet district, 24 clusters (with a population of about 20 000 each) were randomly assigned in equal numbers to one of two intervention arms or to the comparison arm. Because of the study design, masking was not feasible. All married women of reproductive age (15-49 years) were eligible to participate. In the home-care arm, female community health workers (one per 4000 population) identified pregnant women, made two antenatal home visits to promote birth and newborn-care preparedness, made postnatal home visits to assess newborns on the first, third, and seventh days of birth, and referred or treated sick neonates. In the community-care arm, birth and newborn-care preparedness and careseeking from qualified providers were promoted solely through group sessions held by female and male community mobilisers. The primary outcome was reduction in neonatal mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 00198705. The number of clusters per arm was eight. The number of participants was 36059, 40159, and 37598 in the home-care, community-care, and comparison arms, respectively, with 14 769, 16 325, and 15 350 livebirths, respectively. In the last 6 months of the 30-month intervention, neonatal mortality rates were 29.2 per 1000, 45.2 per 1000, and 43.5 per 1000 in the home-care, community-care, and comparison arms, respectively. Neonatal mortality was reduced in the home-care arm by 34% (adjusted relative risk 0.66; 95% CI 0.47-0.93) during the last 6 months versus that in the comparison arm. No mortality reduction was noted in the community-care arm (0.95; 0.69-1.31). A home-care strategy to promote an integrated package of preventive and curative newborn care is effective in reducing neonatal mortality in communities with a weak health system, low health-care use, and high neonatal mortality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of community-based behaviour change management on neonatal mortality in Shivgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

            In rural India, most births take place in the home, where high-risk care practices are common. We developed an intervention of behaviour change management, with a focus on prevention of hypothermia, aimed at modifying practices and reducing neonatal mortality. We did a cluster-randomised controlled efficacy trial in Shivgarh, a rural area in Uttar Pradesh. 39 village administrative units (population 104,123) were allocated to one of three groups: a control group, which received the usual services of governmental and non-governmental organisations in the area; an intervention group, which received a preventive package of interventions for essential newborn care (birth preparedness, clean delivery and cord care, thermal care [including skin-to-skin care], breastfeeding promotion, and danger sign recognition); or another intervention group, which received the package of essential newborn care plus use of a liquid crystal hypothermia indicator (ThermoSpot). In the intervention clusters, community health workers delivered the packages via collective meetings and two antenatal and two postnatal household visitations. Outcome measures included changes in newborn-care practices and neonatal mortality rate compared with the control group. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as International Standard Randomised Control Trial, number NCT00198653. Improvements in birth preparedness, hygienic delivery, thermal care (including skin-to-skin care), umbilical cord care, skin care, and breastfeeding were seen in intervention arms. There was little change in care-seeking. Compared with controls, neonatal mortality rate was reduced by 54% in the essential newborn-care intervention (rate ratio 0.46 [95% CI 0.35-0.60], p<0.0001) and by 52% in the essential newborn care plus ThermoSpot arm (0.48 [95% CI 0.35-0.66], p<0.0001). A socioculturally contextualised, community-based intervention, targeted at high-risk newborn-care practices, can lead to substantial behavioural modification and reduction in neonatal mortality. This approach can be applied to behaviour change along the continuum of care, harmonise vertical interventions, and build community capacity for sustained development. USAID and Save the Children-US through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.

              To determine whether group prenatal care improves pregnancy outcomes, psychosocial function, and patient satisfaction and to examine potential cost differences. A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted at two university-affiliated hospital prenatal clinics. Pregnant women aged 14-25 years (n=1,047) were randomly assigned to either standard or group care. Women with medical conditions requiring individualized care were excluded from randomization. Group participants received care in a group setting with women having the same expected delivery month. Timing and content of visits followed obstetric guidelines from week 18 through delivery. Each 2-hour prenatal care session included physical assessment, education and skills building, and support through facilitated group discussion. Structured interviews were conducted at study entry, during the third trimester, and postpartum. Mean age of participants was 20.4 years; 80% were African American. Using intent-to-treat analyses, women assigned to group care were significantly less likely to have preterm births compared with those in standard care: 9.8% compared with 13.8%, with no differences in age, parity, education, or income between study conditions. This is equivalent to a risk reduction of 33% (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.99, P=.045), or 40 per 1,000 births. Effects were strengthened for African-American women: 10.0% compared with 15.8% (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.92, P=.02). Women in group sessions were less likely to have suboptimal prenatal care (P<.01), had significantly better prenatal knowledge (P<.001), felt more ready for labor and delivery (P<.001), and had greater satisfaction with care (P<.001). Breastfeeding initiation was higher in group care: 66.5% compared with 54.6%, P<.001. There were no differences in birth weight nor in costs associated with prenatal care or delivery. Group prenatal care resulted in equal or improved perinatal outcomes at no added cost. ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00271960 I.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                146518
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                November 05 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Adelaide; Robinson Research Institute; Adelaide Australia Australia
                [2 ]Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences; Adelaide Australia
                [3 ]The Hospital for Sick Children; Centre for Global Child Health; Toronto Canada
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD007647.pub2
                6828589
                31686427
                a093ac88-5209-460e-b4a2-b2d26e27e1ab
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article