Applicability of the WHO maternal near-miss tool: A nationwide surveillance study in Suriname.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
20
11
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
4
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Maternal near-miss (MNM) is an important maternal health quality-of-care indicator. To facilitate comparison between countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the "MNM-tool". However, several low- and middle-income countries have proposed adaptations to prevent underreporting, ie, Namibian and Sub-Sahara African (SSA)-criteria. This study aims to assess MNM and associated factors in middle-income country Suriname by applying the three different MNM tools. A nationwide prospective population-based cohort study was conducted using the Suriname Obstetric Surveillance System (SurOSS). We included women with MNM-criteria defined by WHO-, Namibian- and SSA-tools during one year (March 2017-February 2018) and used hospital births (86% of total) as a reference group. There were 9114 hospital live births in Suriname in the one-year study period. SurOSS identified 71 women with WHO-MNM (8/1000 live births, mortality-index 12%), 118 with Namibian-MNM (13/1000 live births, mortality-index 8%), and 242 with SSA-MNM (27/1000 live births, mortality-index 4%). Namibian- and SSA-tools identified all women with WHO-criteria. Blood transfusion thresholds and eclampsia explained the majority of differences in MNM prevalence. Eclampsia was not considered a WHO-MNM in 80% (n = 35/44) of cases. Nevertheless, mortality-index for MNM with hypertensive disorders was 17% and the most frequent underlying cause of maternal deaths (n = 4/10, 40%) and MNM (n = 24/71, 34%). Women of advanced age and maroon ethnicity had twice the odds of WHO-MNM (respectively adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.4-4.8 and aOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2-3.6). The stillbirths rate among women with WHO-MNM was 193/1000births, with six times higher odds than women without MNM (aOR = 6.8, 95%CI = 3.0-15.8). While the prevalence and mortality-index differ between the three MNM tools, the underlying causes of and factors associated with MNM were comparable. The MNM ratio in Suriname is comparable to other countries in the region. The WHO-tool underestimates the prevalence of MNM (high mortality-index), while the adapted tools may overestimate MNM and compromise global comparability. Contextualized MNM-criteria per obstetric transition stage may improve comparability and reduce underreporting. While MNM studies facilitate international comparison, audit will remain necessary to identify shortfalls in quality-of-care and improve maternal outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Maternal near-miss (MNM) is an important maternal health quality-of-care indicator. To facilitate comparison between countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed the "MNM-tool". However, several low- and middle-income countries have proposed adaptations to prevent underreporting, ie, Namibian and Sub-Sahara African (SSA)-criteria. This study aims to assess MNM and associated factors in middle-income country Suriname by applying the three different MNM tools.
METHODS
METHODS
A nationwide prospective population-based cohort study was conducted using the Suriname Obstetric Surveillance System (SurOSS). We included women with MNM-criteria defined by WHO-, Namibian- and SSA-tools during one year (March 2017-February 2018) and used hospital births (86% of total) as a reference group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were 9114 hospital live births in Suriname in the one-year study period. SurOSS identified 71 women with WHO-MNM (8/1000 live births, mortality-index 12%), 118 with Namibian-MNM (13/1000 live births, mortality-index 8%), and 242 with SSA-MNM (27/1000 live births, mortality-index 4%). Namibian- and SSA-tools identified all women with WHO-criteria. Blood transfusion thresholds and eclampsia explained the majority of differences in MNM prevalence. Eclampsia was not considered a WHO-MNM in 80% (n = 35/44) of cases. Nevertheless, mortality-index for MNM with hypertensive disorders was 17% and the most frequent underlying cause of maternal deaths (n = 4/10, 40%) and MNM (n = 24/71, 34%). Women of advanced age and maroon ethnicity had twice the odds of WHO-MNM (respectively adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.4-4.8 and aOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.2-3.6). The stillbirths rate among women with WHO-MNM was 193/1000births, with six times higher odds than women without MNM (aOR = 6.8, 95%CI = 3.0-15.8). While the prevalence and mortality-index differ between the three MNM tools, the underlying causes of and factors associated with MNM were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The MNM ratio in Suriname is comparable to other countries in the region. The WHO-tool underestimates the prevalence of MNM (high mortality-index), while the adapted tools may overestimate MNM and compromise global comparability. Contextualized MNM-criteria per obstetric transition stage may improve comparability and reduce underreporting. While MNM studies facilitate international comparison, audit will remain necessary to identify shortfalls in quality-of-care and improve maternal outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33214899
doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.020429
pii: jogh-10-020429
pmc: PMC7649043
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
020429Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
BJOG. 2016 May;123(6):946-53
pubmed: 26412586
Reprod Health. 2016 Nov 4;13(1):134
pubmed: 27814759
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 May;57:e1-e4
pubmed: 25134450
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Aug 29;17(1):275
pubmed: 28851302
BJOG. 2014 Nov;121(12):1521-8
pubmed: 24636369
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Oct;87(10):734
pubmed: 19876533
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;135(4):896-915
pubmed: 32168209
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 14;13(11):e0207350
pubmed: 30427926
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Jan;95(1):106-11
pubmed: 26456014
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jun 19;17(1):194
pubmed: 28629394
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Feb 26;19(1):79
pubmed: 30808325
Glob Health Action. 2019;12(1):1646036
pubmed: 31405363
Lancet. 2013 May 18;381(9879):1747-55
pubmed: 23683641
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Sep 9;19(1):651
pubmed: 31500615
Reprod Health. 2018 Jun 22;15(Suppl 1):98
pubmed: 29945657
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Jul;91(7):824-9
pubmed: 22404729
BJOG. 2014 Sep;121 Suppl 4:112-6
pubmed: 25236644
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
Reprod Health. 2020 May 7;17(1):62
pubmed: 32381099
BJOG. 2019 Feb;126(3):394-401
pubmed: 28755459
Eur J Public Health. 2011 Apr;21(2):229-34
pubmed: 20522516
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Apr;137(1):1-7
pubmed: 28099749
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):445
pubmed: 29284433
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Mar;98(3):342-350
pubmed: 30346039
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Mar;299(3):645-654
pubmed: 30539385
Glob Health Action. 2020 Dec 31;13(1):1794105
pubmed: 32777997
BJOG. 2014 Mar;121 Suppl 1:1-4
pubmed: 24641529
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2020 Sep 21;22:136-143
pubmed: 32979728
J Glob Health. 2020 Jun;10(1):01041310
pubmed: 32373341
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Sep;138(3):347-355
pubmed: 28513837
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Jun;23(3):287-96
pubmed: 19303368
Lancet. 2017 Sep 2;390(10098):922-923
pubmed: 28872018
Am J Perinatol. 2020 Jan;37(1):44-52
pubmed: 31430824
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017 May;39(5):209-216
pubmed: 28561138
BJOG. 2015 Oct;122(11):1506-15
pubmed: 26213333
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):462-74
pubmed: 26584737