Improving birth weight measurement and recording practices in Kenya and Tanzania: a prospective intervention study with historical controls.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Population Health Metrics Pub Date : 2023-05-10 DOI:10.1186/s12963-023-00305-x
Alloys K'Oloo, Evance Godfrey, Annariina M Koivu, Hellen C Barsosio, Karim Manji, Veneranda Ndesangia, Fredrick Omiti, Mohamed Bakari Khery, Everlyne D Ondieki, Simon Kariuki, Feiko O Ter Kuile, R Matthew Chico, Nigel Klein, Otto Heimonen, Per Ashorn, Ulla Ashorn, Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore
{"title":"Improving birth weight measurement and recording practices in Kenya and Tanzania: a prospective intervention study with historical controls.","authors":"Alloys K'Oloo,&nbsp;Evance Godfrey,&nbsp;Annariina M Koivu,&nbsp;Hellen C Barsosio,&nbsp;Karim Manji,&nbsp;Veneranda Ndesangia,&nbsp;Fredrick Omiti,&nbsp;Mohamed Bakari Khery,&nbsp;Everlyne D Ondieki,&nbsp;Simon Kariuki,&nbsp;Feiko O Ter Kuile,&nbsp;R Matthew Chico,&nbsp;Nigel Klein,&nbsp;Otto Heimonen,&nbsp;Per Ashorn,&nbsp;Ulla Ashorn,&nbsp;Pieta Näsänen-Gilmore","doi":"10.1186/s12963-023-00305-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low birth weight (LBW) is a significant public health concern given its association with early-life mortality and other adverse health consequences that can impact the entire life cycle. In many countries, accurate estimates of LBW prevalence are lacking due to inaccuracies in collection and gaps in available data. Our study aimed to determine LBW prevalence among facility-born infants in selected areas of Kenya and Tanzania and to assess whether the introduction of an intervention to improve the accuracy of birth weight measurement would result in a meaningfully different estimate of LBW prevalence than current practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a historically controlled intervention study in 22 health facilities in Kenya and three health facilities in Tanzania. The intervention included: provision of high-quality digital scales, training of nursing staff on accurate birth weight measurement, recording and scale calibration practices, and quality maintenance support that consisted of enhanced supervision and feedback (prospective arm). The historically controlled data were birth weights from the same facilities recorded in maternity registers for the same calendar months from the previous year measured using routine practices and manual scales. We calculated mean birth weight (95% confidence interval CI), mean difference in LBW prevalence, and respective risk ratio (95% CI) between study arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between October 2019 and February 2020, we prospectively collected birth weights from 8441 newborns in Kenya and 4294 in Tanzania. Historical data were available from 9318 newborns in Kenya and 12,007 in Tanzania. In the prospective sample, the prevalence of LBW was 12.6% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 10.9%-14.4%) in Kenya and 18.2% (12.2%-24.2%) in Tanzania. In the historical sample, the corresponding prevalence estimates were 7.8% (6.5%-9.2%) and 10.0% (8.6%-11.4%). Compared to the retrospective sample, the LBW prevalence in the prospective sample was 4.8% points (3.2%-6.4%) higher in Kenya and 8.2% points (2.3%-14.0%) higher in Tanzania, corresponding to a risk ratio of 1.61 (1.38-1.88) in Kenya and 1.81 (1.30-2.52) in Tanzania.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine birth weight records underestimate the risk of LBW among facility-born infants in Kenya and Tanzania. The quality of birth weight data can be improved by a simple intervention consisting of provision of digital scales and supportive training.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"21 1","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10173481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-023-00305-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low birth weight (LBW) is a significant public health concern given its association with early-life mortality and other adverse health consequences that can impact the entire life cycle. In many countries, accurate estimates of LBW prevalence are lacking due to inaccuracies in collection and gaps in available data. Our study aimed to determine LBW prevalence among facility-born infants in selected areas of Kenya and Tanzania and to assess whether the introduction of an intervention to improve the accuracy of birth weight measurement would result in a meaningfully different estimate of LBW prevalence than current practice.

Methods: We carried out a historically controlled intervention study in 22 health facilities in Kenya and three health facilities in Tanzania. The intervention included: provision of high-quality digital scales, training of nursing staff on accurate birth weight measurement, recording and scale calibration practices, and quality maintenance support that consisted of enhanced supervision and feedback (prospective arm). The historically controlled data were birth weights from the same facilities recorded in maternity registers for the same calendar months from the previous year measured using routine practices and manual scales. We calculated mean birth weight (95% confidence interval CI), mean difference in LBW prevalence, and respective risk ratio (95% CI) between study arms.

Results: Between October 2019 and February 2020, we prospectively collected birth weights from 8441 newborns in Kenya and 4294 in Tanzania. Historical data were available from 9318 newborns in Kenya and 12,007 in Tanzania. In the prospective sample, the prevalence of LBW was 12.6% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 10.9%-14.4%) in Kenya and 18.2% (12.2%-24.2%) in Tanzania. In the historical sample, the corresponding prevalence estimates were 7.8% (6.5%-9.2%) and 10.0% (8.6%-11.4%). Compared to the retrospective sample, the LBW prevalence in the prospective sample was 4.8% points (3.2%-6.4%) higher in Kenya and 8.2% points (2.3%-14.0%) higher in Tanzania, corresponding to a risk ratio of 1.61 (1.38-1.88) in Kenya and 1.81 (1.30-2.52) in Tanzania.

Conclusion: Routine birth weight records underestimate the risk of LBW among facility-born infants in Kenya and Tanzania. The quality of birth weight data can be improved by a simple intervention consisting of provision of digital scales and supportive training.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改善肯尼亚和坦桑尼亚出生体重测量和记录实践:一项具有历史对照的前瞻性干预研究。
背景:低出生体重(LBW)是一个重要的公共卫生问题,因为它与生命早期死亡率和其他可能影响整个生命周期的不良健康后果有关。在许多国家,由于收集不准确和现有数据存在差距,缺乏对轻生物武器流行率的准确估计。我们的研究旨在确定肯尼亚和坦桑尼亚选定地区的设施出生婴儿中LBW的患病率,并评估引入干预措施以提高出生体重测量的准确性是否会导致LBW患病率的估计与目前的做法有意义的不同。方法:我们在肯尼亚的22家卫生机构和坦桑尼亚的3家卫生机构进行了历史对照干预研究。干预措施包括:提供高质量的数字秤,培训护理人员准确的出生体重测量,记录和秤校准实践,以及质量维护支持,包括加强监督和反馈(前瞻性组)。历史上控制的数据是来自同一设施的出生体重,记录在与上一年相同日历月的产妇登记册中,使用常规方法和手动秤测量。我们计算了研究组间的平均出生体重(95%置信区间CI)、LBW患病率的平均差异和各自的风险比(95% CI)。结果:2019年10月至2020年2月期间,我们前瞻性地收集了肯尼亚8441名新生儿和坦桑尼亚4294名新生儿的出生体重。历史数据来自肯尼亚的9318名新生儿和坦桑尼亚的12,007名新生儿。在前瞻性样本中,肯尼亚的LBW患病率为12.6%(95%置信区间[CI]: 10.9%-14.4%),坦桑尼亚为18.2%(12.2%-24.2%)。在历史样本中,相应的患病率估计值为7.8%(6.5%-9.2%)和10.0%(8.6%-11.4%)。与回顾性样本相比,前瞻性样本的LBW患病率在肯尼亚高4.8%(3.2%-6.4%),在坦桑尼亚高8.2%(2.3%-14.0%),对应的风险比在肯尼亚为1.61(1.38-1.88),在坦桑尼亚为1.81(1.30-2.52)。结论:在肯尼亚和坦桑尼亚,常规出生体重记录低估了机构出生婴儿发生LBW的风险。出生体重数据的质量可以通过提供数字秤和支持性培训等简单干预措施得到改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
期刊最新文献
A new method for estimating recent adult mortality from summary sibling histories. Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nutritional status of infants and toddlers: insights from China. Harmonizing measurements: establishing a common metric via shared items across instruments. Examining select sociodemographic characteristics of sub-county geographies for public health surveillance. Deriving disability weights for the Netherlands: findings from the Dutch disability weights measurement study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1