Adverse birth outcomes among women with 'low-risk' pregnancies in India: findings from the Fifth National Family Health Survey, 2019-21.
Health system
Health system quality
India
Newborn mortality
Pregnancy risk
Risk stratification
Journal
The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia
ISSN: 2772-3682
Titre abrégé: Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918419282806676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
26
01
2023
revised:
07
06
2023
accepted:
07
07
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
31
7
2023
entrez:
31
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite substantial progress in improving maternal and newborn health, India continues to experience high rates of newborn mortality and stillbirths. One reason may be that many births happen in health facilities that lack advanced services-such as Caesarean section, blood transfusion, or newborn intensive care. Stratification based on pregnancy risk factors is used to guide 'high-risk' women to advanced facilities. To assess the utility of risk stratification for guiding the choice of facility, we estimated the frequency of adverse newborn outcomes among women classified as 'low risk' in India. We used the 2019-21 Fifth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5)-India's Demographic and Health Survey-which includes modules administered to women aged 15-49 years. In addition to pregnancy history and outcomes, the survey collected a range of risk factors, including biomarkers. We used national obstetric risk guidelines to classify women as 'high risk' versus 'low risk' and assessed the frequency of stillbirths, newborn deaths, and unplanned Caesarean sections for the respondent's last pregnancy lasting 7 or more months in the past five years. We calculated the proportion of deliveries occurring at non-hospital facilities in all the Indian states. Using data from nearly 176,699 recent pregnancies, we found that 46.6% of India's newborn deaths and 56.3% of stillbirths were among women who were 'low risk' according to national guidelines. Women classified as 'low risk' had a Caesarean section rate of 8.4% (95% CI 8.1-8.7%), marginally lower than the national average of 10.0% (95% CI 9.8-10.3%). In India as a whole, 32.0% (95% CI 31.5-32.5%) of deliveries occurred in facilities that were likely to lack advanced services. There was substantial variation across the country, with less than 5% non-hospital public facility deliveries in Punjab, Kerala, and Delhi compared to more than 40% in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Newborn mortality tended to be lower in states with highest hospital delivery rates. Individual risk stratification based on factors identified in pregnancy fails to accurately predict which women will have delivery complications and experience stillbirth and newborn death in India. Thus a determination of 'low risk' should not be used to guide women to health facilities lacking key life saving services, including Caesarean section, blood transfusion, and advanced newborn resuscitation and care. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in the paper are entirely those of the authors, and do not represent the views of the Gates Foundation or of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Despite substantial progress in improving maternal and newborn health, India continues to experience high rates of newborn mortality and stillbirths. One reason may be that many births happen in health facilities that lack advanced services-such as Caesarean section, blood transfusion, or newborn intensive care. Stratification based on pregnancy risk factors is used to guide 'high-risk' women to advanced facilities. To assess the utility of risk stratification for guiding the choice of facility, we estimated the frequency of adverse newborn outcomes among women classified as 'low risk' in India.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We used the 2019-21 Fifth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5)-India's Demographic and Health Survey-which includes modules administered to women aged 15-49 years. In addition to pregnancy history and outcomes, the survey collected a range of risk factors, including biomarkers. We used national obstetric risk guidelines to classify women as 'high risk' versus 'low risk' and assessed the frequency of stillbirths, newborn deaths, and unplanned Caesarean sections for the respondent's last pregnancy lasting 7 or more months in the past five years. We calculated the proportion of deliveries occurring at non-hospital facilities in all the Indian states.
Findings
UNASSIGNED
Using data from nearly 176,699 recent pregnancies, we found that 46.6% of India's newborn deaths and 56.3% of stillbirths were among women who were 'low risk' according to national guidelines. Women classified as 'low risk' had a Caesarean section rate of 8.4% (95% CI 8.1-8.7%), marginally lower than the national average of 10.0% (95% CI 9.8-10.3%). In India as a whole, 32.0% (95% CI 31.5-32.5%) of deliveries occurred in facilities that were likely to lack advanced services. There was substantial variation across the country, with less than 5% non-hospital public facility deliveries in Punjab, Kerala, and Delhi compared to more than 40% in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Newborn mortality tended to be lower in states with highest hospital delivery rates.
Interpretation
UNASSIGNED
Individual risk stratification based on factors identified in pregnancy fails to accurately predict which women will have delivery complications and experience stillbirth and newborn death in India. Thus a determination of 'low risk' should not be used to guide women to health facilities lacking key life saving services, including Caesarean section, blood transfusion, and advanced newborn resuscitation and care.
Funding
UNASSIGNED
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in the paper are entirely those of the authors, and do not represent the views of the Gates Foundation or of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37521318
doi: 10.1016/j.lansea.2023.100253
pii: S2772-3682(23)00113-0
pmc: PMC10382663
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100253Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Drs. Mickey Chopra, Kevin Croke, Sanam Roder-DeWan, Andrew Sunil Rajkumar, and Margaret E. Kruk hold grants or contracts from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Several authors (SRD, MC, MAP, ANB, KC, and MEK) received travel funding for a meeting where this paper was initially conceived. Authors declare no other conflicts of interest.
Références
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148343
pubmed: 26849801
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Sep;38(9):1576-1584
pubmed: 31479351
PLoS Med. 2021 Dec 1;18(12):e1003843
pubmed: 34851947
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2026750
pubmed: 33206194
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;212(6):809.e1-6
pubmed: 26042957
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10):
pubmed: 33055093
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):189-205
pubmed: 24853593
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1196-e1252
pubmed: 30196093
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 4;8(6):e020532
pubmed: 29866726
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 4;13(12):e0208563
pubmed: 30513118
BJOG. 2022 Mar;129(4):550-561
pubmed: 34455679
JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314(21):2263-70
pubmed: 26624825
BMC Public Health. 2021 Sep 21;21(1):1715
pubmed: 34548059
Lancet. 2010 Jun 5;375(9730):2009-23
pubmed: 20569841
N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 14;377(24):2313-2324
pubmed: 29236628