Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home-based postpartum care on neonatal mortality and exclusive breastfeeding practice in low-and-middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Adult
Breast Feeding
/ statistics & numerical data
Community Health Services
/ economics
Community Health Workers
/ economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Developing Countries
Facilities and Services Utilization
/ economics
Female
Home Care Services
/ economics
House Calls
/ economics
Humans
Income
Infant
Infant Mortality
Infant, Newborn
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Postnatal Care
/ economics
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Cost
Cost-effectiveness
Exclusive breastfeeding
Home visit
Home-based newborn care
Home-based postnatal care
Low-and-middle-income countries
Neonatal mortality
Postpartum home visit
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Dec 2019
18 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2019
accepted:
29
11
2019
entrez:
20
12
2019
pubmed:
20
12
2019
medline:
16
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Early postpartum facility discharge negatively impacts mothers' proper and effective use postnatal care. Cognizant of these facts, home-based postnatal care practices have been promoted to complement facility-based care to reduce neonatal mortality. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home-based postnatal care on exclusive breastfeeding practice and neonatal mortality in low-and-middle-income countries. Randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies were searched from electronic databases including PubMed, Popline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and National Health Service Economic Evaluation databases. Random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool the estimates of the outcomes accounting for the variability among studies. We identified 14 trials implementing intervention packages that included preventive and promotive newborn care services, home-based treatment for sick neonates, and community mobilization activities. The pooled analysis indicates that home-based postpartum care reduced neonatal mortally by 24% (risk ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.92; 9 trials; n = 93,083; heterogeneity p < .01) with no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test: Coef. = - 1.263; p = .130). The subgroup analysis suggested that frequent home visits, home visits by community health workers, and community mobilization efforts with home visits, to had better neonatal survival. Likewise, the odds of mothers who exclusively breastfed from the home visit group were about three times higher than the mothers who were in the routine care group (odds ratio: 2.88; 95% confidence interval: 1.57-5.29; 6 trials; n = 20,624 mothers; heterogeneity p < .01), with low possibility of publication bias (Coef. = - 7.870; p = .164). According to the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project recommendations, home-based neonatal care strategy was found to be cost-effective. Home visits and community mobilization activities to promote neonatal care practices by community health workers is associated with reduced neonatal mortality, increased practice of exclusive breastfeeding, and cost-effective in improving newborn health outcomes for low-and-middle-income countries. However, a well-designed evaluation study is required to formulate the optimal package and optimal timing of home visits to standardize home-based postnatal interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Early postpartum facility discharge negatively impacts mothers' proper and effective use postnatal care. Cognizant of these facts, home-based postnatal care practices have been promoted to complement facility-based care to reduce neonatal mortality. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home-based postnatal care on exclusive breastfeeding practice and neonatal mortality in low-and-middle-income countries.
METHODS
METHODS
Randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies were searched from electronic databases including PubMed, Popline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and National Health Service Economic Evaluation databases. Random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool the estimates of the outcomes accounting for the variability among studies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 14 trials implementing intervention packages that included preventive and promotive newborn care services, home-based treatment for sick neonates, and community mobilization activities. The pooled analysis indicates that home-based postpartum care reduced neonatal mortally by 24% (risk ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.92; 9 trials; n = 93,083; heterogeneity p < .01) with no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test: Coef. = - 1.263; p = .130). The subgroup analysis suggested that frequent home visits, home visits by community health workers, and community mobilization efforts with home visits, to had better neonatal survival. Likewise, the odds of mothers who exclusively breastfed from the home visit group were about three times higher than the mothers who were in the routine care group (odds ratio: 2.88; 95% confidence interval: 1.57-5.29; 6 trials; n = 20,624 mothers; heterogeneity p < .01), with low possibility of publication bias (Coef. = - 7.870; p = .164). According to the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project recommendations, home-based neonatal care strategy was found to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Home visits and community mobilization activities to promote neonatal care practices by community health workers is associated with reduced neonatal mortality, increased practice of exclusive breastfeeding, and cost-effective in improving newborn health outcomes for low-and-middle-income countries. However, a well-designed evaluation study is required to formulate the optimal package and optimal timing of home visits to standardize home-based postnatal interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31852432
doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2651-6
pii: 10.1186/s12884-019-2651-6
pmc: PMC6921506
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
507Références
Evid Based Child Health. 2014 Mar;9(1):5-99
pubmed: 25404577
Lancet. 2011 Jan 29;377(9763):403-12
pubmed: 21239052
Lancet. 1999 Dec 4;354(9194):1955-61
pubmed: 10622298
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Apr 30;15:106
pubmed: 25925407
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jul 22;14:243
pubmed: 25052536
Lancet. 2005 Mar 5-11;365(9462):891-900
pubmed: 15752534
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 24;5(3):e9696
pubmed: 20352087
Hum Resour Health. 2011 Jan 22;9:3
pubmed: 21255446
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Feb 1;93(2):118-24
pubmed: 25883405
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Aug;5(8):e796-e806
pubmed: 28716351
Lancet. 2011 Jul 30;378(9789):420-7
pubmed: 21752462
Pediatrics. 2015 Feb;135(2):314-21
pubmed: 25583922
Lancet. 2013 May 18;381(9879):1736-46
pubmed: 23683640
Pediatrics. 2005 Feb;115(2 Suppl):519-617
pubmed: 15866863
Lancet. 2014 Jul 26;384(9940):347-70
pubmed: 24853604
PLoS Med. 2015 Sep 29;12(9):e1001881
pubmed: 26418813
Reprod Health Matters. 2006 May;14(27):40-50
pubmed: 16713878
J Perinatol. 2016 Jan;36(1):71-6
pubmed: 26540248
Lancet. 2005 Sep 24-30;366(9491):1094-100
pubmed: 16182897
Lancet. 2007 Oct 13;370(9595):1358-69
pubmed: 17933651
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Apr;117(1):48-55
pubmed: 22281244
Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 18;12(1):89
pubmed: 28720114
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 17;11:CD011558
pubmed: 29148566
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Sep;167(9):816-25
pubmed: 23689475
Lancet. 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):997-1003
pubmed: 15364193
Public Health Nurs. 2008 Mar-Apr;25(2):115-25
pubmed: 18294180
Lancet. 2008 Sep 27;372(9644):1151-62
pubmed: 18926277
Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(1):2-8
pubmed: 24176202
Health Policy Plan. 2017 Oct 1;32(suppl_1):i21-i32
pubmed: 28981760
Lancet. 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):970-9
pubmed: 15364188
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Jan;4(1):e45-56
pubmed: 26639857
Lancet. 2013 Jun 22;381(9884):2184-92
pubmed: 23578528
Bull World Health Organ. 2013 Oct 1;91(10):736-45
pubmed: 24115797
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55012
pubmed: 23390509
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Oct;5(10):e1004-e1016
pubmed: 28911749
Lancet. 2005 Mar 12-18;365(9463):977-88
pubmed: 15767001
Reprod Health. 2014;11 Suppl 1:S4
pubmed: 25177974
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 23;(3):CD007754
pubmed: 25803792
BMJ. 2012 Mar 21;344:e1634
pubmed: 22438367
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Sep 1;88(9):658-666B
pubmed: 20865070
BMJ. 2005 Nov 12;331(7525):1107
pubmed: 16282407
Value Health. 2005 Sep-Oct;8(5):521-33
pubmed: 16176491
Glob Health Action. 2015 Mar 31;8:24584
pubmed: 25843498