Effectiveness of an Electronic Partogram: A Mixed-Method, Quasi-Experimental Study Among Skilled Birth Attendants in Kenya.
Journal
Global health, science and practice
ISSN: 2169-575X
Titre abrégé: Glob Health Sci Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101624414
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 12 2019
23 12 2019
Historique:
received:
26
05
2019
accepted:
15
10
2019
entrez:
26
12
2019
pubmed:
26
12
2019
medline:
27
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Timely identification and management of intrapartum complications could significantly reduce maternal deaths, intrapartum stillbirths, and newborn deaths due to hypoxia. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies monitoring of labor using the paper partograph as a high-priority intervention for identifying abnormities in labor and fetal well-being. This article describes a mixed-method, quasi-experimental study to assess the effectiveness of an Android tablet-based electronic, labor clinical decision-support application (ePartogram) in limited-resource settings. The study, conducted in Kenya from October 2016 to May 2017, allocated 12 hospitals and health centers to an intervention (ePartogram) or comparison (paper partograph) group. Skilled birth attendants (SBAs) in both groups received a 2-day refresher training in labor management and partograph use. The intervention group received an additional 1-day orientation on use and care of the Android-based ePartogram app. All outcomes except one compare post-ePartogram intervention versus paper partograph controls. The exception is outcome of early perinatal mortality pre- and post-ePartogram introduction in intervention sites compared to control sites. We used log binomial regression to analyze the primary outcome of the study, suboptimal fetal outcomes. We also analyzed for secondary outcomes (SBAs performing recommended actions), and conducted in-depth interviews with facility in-charges and SBAs to ascertain acceptability and adoptability of the ePartogram. We compared data from 842 clients in active labor using ePartograms with data from 1,042 clients monitored using a paper partograph. SBAs using ePartograms were more likely than those using paper partographs to take action to maintain normal labor, such as ambulation, feeding, and fluid intake, and to address abnormal measurements of fetal well-being (14.7% versus 5.3%, adjusted relative risk=4.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.95-8.19). Use of the ePartogram was associated with a 56% (95% CI=27%-73%) lower likelihood of suboptimal fetal outcomes than the paper partograph. Users of the ePartogram were more likely to be compliant with routine labor observations. SBAs stated that the technology was easy to use but raised concerns about its use at high-volume sites. Further research is needed to evaluate costs and benefit and to incorporate recent WHO guidance on labor management. ePartogram use was associated with improvements in adherence to recommendations for routine labor care and a reduction in adverse fetal outcomes, with providers reporting adoptability without undue effort. Continued development of the ePartogram, including incorporating new clinical rules from the 2018 WHO recommendations on intrapartum care, will improve labor monitoring and quality care at all health system levels.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Timely identification and management of intrapartum complications could significantly reduce maternal deaths, intrapartum stillbirths, and newborn deaths due to hypoxia. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies monitoring of labor using the paper partograph as a high-priority intervention for identifying abnormities in labor and fetal well-being. This article describes a mixed-method, quasi-experimental study to assess the effectiveness of an Android tablet-based electronic, labor clinical decision-support application (ePartogram) in limited-resource settings.
METHODS
The study, conducted in Kenya from October 2016 to May 2017, allocated 12 hospitals and health centers to an intervention (ePartogram) or comparison (paper partograph) group. Skilled birth attendants (SBAs) in both groups received a 2-day refresher training in labor management and partograph use. The intervention group received an additional 1-day orientation on use and care of the Android-based ePartogram app. All outcomes except one compare post-ePartogram intervention versus paper partograph controls. The exception is outcome of early perinatal mortality pre- and post-ePartogram introduction in intervention sites compared to control sites. We used log binomial regression to analyze the primary outcome of the study, suboptimal fetal outcomes. We also analyzed for secondary outcomes (SBAs performing recommended actions), and conducted in-depth interviews with facility in-charges and SBAs to ascertain acceptability and adoptability of the ePartogram.
RESULTS
We compared data from 842 clients in active labor using ePartograms with data from 1,042 clients monitored using a paper partograph. SBAs using ePartograms were more likely than those using paper partographs to take action to maintain normal labor, such as ambulation, feeding, and fluid intake, and to address abnormal measurements of fetal well-being (14.7% versus 5.3%, adjusted relative risk=4.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.95-8.19). Use of the ePartogram was associated with a 56% (95% CI=27%-73%) lower likelihood of suboptimal fetal outcomes than the paper partograph. Users of the ePartogram were more likely to be compliant with routine labor observations. SBAs stated that the technology was easy to use but raised concerns about its use at high-volume sites. Further research is needed to evaluate costs and benefit and to incorporate recent WHO guidance on labor management.
CONCLUSION
ePartogram use was associated with improvements in adherence to recommendations for routine labor care and a reduction in adverse fetal outcomes, with providers reporting adoptability without undue effort. Continued development of the ePartogram, including incorporating new clinical rules from the 2018 WHO recommendations on intrapartum care, will improve labor monitoring and quality care at all health system levels.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31874937
pii: GHSP-D-19-00195
doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-19-00195
pmc: PMC6927834
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
521-539Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© Sanghvi et al.
Références
BMJ. 2015 Sep 14;351:h4255
pubmed: 26371222
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018 Aug;68(4):326-327
pubmed: 30065551
BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1045-9
pubmed: 25929823
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011 Oct;31(7):612-6
pubmed: 21973135
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;187(4):824-8
pubmed: 12388957
Lancet. 2014 Sep 13;384(9947):980-1004
pubmed: 24797575
Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):587-603
pubmed: 26794078
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 06;8:CD005461
pubmed: 30080256
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 May 9;18(1):147
pubmed: 29743032
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Oct;107 Suppl 1:S5-18, S19
pubmed: 19815202
Obstet Gynecol. 1955 Dec;6(6):567-89
pubmed: 13272981
Virtual Mentor. 2011 Mar 01;13(3):181-5
pubmed: 23127322
Afr J Reprod Health. 2007 Apr;11(1):22-32
pubmed: 17982945
PLoS Med. 2018 Jan 16;15(1):e1002492
pubmed: 29338000
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007 Jan;29(1):27-34
pubmed: 17346475
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jan 13;17(1):31
pubmed: 28086823
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul;122(1):33-40
pubmed: 23743454
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Aug 16;14:281
pubmed: 25132124