Why are the Pakistani maternal, fetal and newborn outcomes so poor compared to other low and middle-income countries?
Global network
Maternal mortality
Neonatal mortality
Pakistan
Pregnancy outcomes
Risk factors
Stillbirth
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Dec 2020
17 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
16
10
2020
accepted:
25
10
2020
entrez:
18
12
2020
pubmed:
19
12
2020
medline:
16
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pakistan has among the poorest pregnancy outcomes worldwide, significantly worse than many other low-resource countries. The reasons for these differences are not clear. In this study, we compared pregnancy outcomes in Pakistan to other low-resource countries and explored factors that might help explain these differences. The Global Network (GN) Maternal Newborn Health Registry (MNHR) is a prospective, population-based observational study that includes all pregnant women and their pregnancy outcomes in defined geographic communities in six low-middle income countries (India, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Zambia). Study staff enroll women in early pregnancy and follow-up soon after delivery and at 42 days to ascertain delivery, neonatal, and maternal outcomes. We analyzed the maternal mortality ratios (MMR), neonatal mortality rates (NMR), stillbirth rates, and potential explanatory factors from 2010 to 2018 across the GN sites. From 2010 to 2018, there were 91,076 births in Pakistan and 456,276 births in the other GN sites combined. The MMR in Pakistan was 319 per 100,000 live births compared to an average of 124 in the other sites, while the Pakistan NMR was 49.4 per 1,000 live births compared to 20.4 in the other sites. The stillbirth rate in Pakistan was 53.5 per 1000 births compared to 23.2 for the other sites. Preterm birth and low birthweight rates were also substantially higher than the other sites combined. Within weight ranges, the Pakistani site generally had significantly higher rates of stillbirth and neonatal mortality than the other sites combined, with differences increasing as birthweights increased. By nearly every measure, medical care for pregnant women and their newborns in the Pakistan sites was worse than at the other sites combined. The Pakistani pregnancy outcomes are much worse than those in the other GN sites. Reasons for these poorer outcomes likely include that the Pakistani sites' reproductive-aged women are largely poorly educated, undernourished, anemic, and deliver a high percentage of preterm and low-birthweight babies in settings of often inadequate maternal and newborn care. By addressing the issues highlighted in this paper there appears to be substantial room for improvements in Pakistan's pregnancy outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pakistan has among the poorest pregnancy outcomes worldwide, significantly worse than many other low-resource countries. The reasons for these differences are not clear. In this study, we compared pregnancy outcomes in Pakistan to other low-resource countries and explored factors that might help explain these differences.
METHODS
METHODS
The Global Network (GN) Maternal Newborn Health Registry (MNHR) is a prospective, population-based observational study that includes all pregnant women and their pregnancy outcomes in defined geographic communities in six low-middle income countries (India, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Zambia). Study staff enroll women in early pregnancy and follow-up soon after delivery and at 42 days to ascertain delivery, neonatal, and maternal outcomes. We analyzed the maternal mortality ratios (MMR), neonatal mortality rates (NMR), stillbirth rates, and potential explanatory factors from 2010 to 2018 across the GN sites.
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 2010 to 2018, there were 91,076 births in Pakistan and 456,276 births in the other GN sites combined. The MMR in Pakistan was 319 per 100,000 live births compared to an average of 124 in the other sites, while the Pakistan NMR was 49.4 per 1,000 live births compared to 20.4 in the other sites. The stillbirth rate in Pakistan was 53.5 per 1000 births compared to 23.2 for the other sites. Preterm birth and low birthweight rates were also substantially higher than the other sites combined. Within weight ranges, the Pakistani site generally had significantly higher rates of stillbirth and neonatal mortality than the other sites combined, with differences increasing as birthweights increased. By nearly every measure, medical care for pregnant women and their newborns in the Pakistan sites was worse than at the other sites combined.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Pakistani pregnancy outcomes are much worse than those in the other GN sites. Reasons for these poorer outcomes likely include that the Pakistani sites' reproductive-aged women are largely poorly educated, undernourished, anemic, and deliver a high percentage of preterm and low-birthweight babies in settings of often inadequate maternal and newborn care. By addressing the issues highlighted in this paper there appears to be substantial room for improvements in Pakistan's pregnancy outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33334329
doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-01023-5
pii: 10.1186/s12978-020-01023-5
pmc: PMC7745345
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
190Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : UG1 HD076461
Pays : United States
Organisme : Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
ID : UG1HD078438
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : UG1 HD078439
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : UG1 HD076465
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : UG1 HD078438
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : UG1 HD076474
Pays : United States
Références
Reprod Health. 2020 Nov 30;17(Suppl 2):157
pubmed: 33256784
Reprod Health. 2020 Nov 30;17(Suppl 2):154
pubmed: 33256770
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Nov 25;13 Suppl 1:49
pubmed: 26792061
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;132(4):875-881
pubmed: 30204701
PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 02;7(3):e1000241
pubmed: 20209000
Lancet. 2018 Apr 14;391(10129):1493-1512
pubmed: 29395272
Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):587-603
pubmed: 26794078
Reprod Health. 2020 Nov 30;17(Suppl 2):159
pubmed: 33256778
BJOG. 2019 May;126(6):737-743
pubmed: 30554474
JAMA. 2017 Jun 6;317(21):2207-2225
pubmed: 28586887
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 May;6(5):e548-e554
pubmed: 29571592