71 个中低收入国家妇女的分娩和产后护理:利用住户调查分析覆盖率差距。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1186/s12884-024-06681-y
Emily B Wilson, Lori Niehaus, Safia S Jiwani, Elizabeth A Hazel, Abdoulaye Maïga, Agbessi Amouzou
{"title":"71 个中低收入国家妇女的分娩和产后护理:利用住户调查分析覆盖率差距。","authors":"Emily B Wilson, Lori Niehaus, Safia S Jiwani, Elizabeth A Hazel, Abdoulaye Maïga, Agbessi Amouzou","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06681-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High levels of maternal morbidity and mortality persist in low- and middle-income countries, despite increases in coverage of facility delivery and skilled assistance at delivery. We compared levels of facility birth to a summary delivery care measure and quantified gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We approximated a delivery care score from type of delivery (home, lower-level facility, or hospital), skilled attendant at delivery, a stay of 24-or-more-hours after delivery, and a health check within 48-h after delivery. Data were obtained from 333,316 women aged 15-49 who had a live birth in the previous 2 years, and from 71 countries with nationally representative surveys between 2013 and 2020. We computed facility delivery and delivery care coverage estimates to assess the gap. We stratified the analysis by country characteristics, including the national maternal mortality ratio (MMR), to assess the size of coverage gaps, and we assessed missed opportunities through coverage cascades. We looked at the association between MMR and delivery care coverage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Delivery care coverage varied by country, ranging from 24% in Sudan to 100% in Cuba. Median coverage was 70% with an interquartile range of 30 percentage points (55% and 85%). The cascade showed that while 76% of women delivered in a facility, only 41% received all four interventions. Coverage gaps exist across all MMR levels. Gaps between highest and lowest wealth quintiles were greatest in countries with MMR levels of 100 or higher, and the gap narrowed in countries with MMR levels below 100. The delivery care indicator had a negative association with MMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In addition to providing high-quality evidenced-based care to women during birth and the postpartum period, there is also a need to address gaps in delivery care, which occur within and between countries, wealth quintiles, and MMR phases.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11282627/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delivery and postnatal care among women in 71 low- and middle-income countries: analyzing coverage gaps using household surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Emily B Wilson, Lori Niehaus, Safia S Jiwani, Elizabeth A Hazel, Abdoulaye Maïga, Agbessi Amouzou\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12884-024-06681-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High levels of maternal morbidity and mortality persist in low- and middle-income countries, despite increases in coverage of facility delivery and skilled assistance at delivery. We compared levels of facility birth to a summary delivery care measure and quantified gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We approximated a delivery care score from type of delivery (home, lower-level facility, or hospital), skilled attendant at delivery, a stay of 24-or-more-hours after delivery, and a health check within 48-h after delivery. Data were obtained from 333,316 women aged 15-49 who had a live birth in the previous 2 years, and from 71 countries with nationally representative surveys between 2013 and 2020. We computed facility delivery and delivery care coverage estimates to assess the gap. We stratified the analysis by country characteristics, including the national maternal mortality ratio (MMR), to assess the size of coverage gaps, and we assessed missed opportunities through coverage cascades. We looked at the association between MMR and delivery care coverage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Delivery care coverage varied by country, ranging from 24% in Sudan to 100% in Cuba. Median coverage was 70% with an interquartile range of 30 percentage points (55% and 85%). The cascade showed that while 76% of women delivered in a facility, only 41% received all four interventions. Coverage gaps exist across all MMR levels. Gaps between highest and lowest wealth quintiles were greatest in countries with MMR levels of 100 or higher, and the gap narrowed in countries with MMR levels below 100. The delivery care indicator had a negative association with MMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In addition to providing high-quality evidenced-based care to women during birth and the postpartum period, there is also a need to address gaps in delivery care, which occur within and between countries, wealth quintiles, and MMR phases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11282627/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06681-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06681-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管设施接生和熟练助产的覆盖率有所提高,但中低收入国家的孕产妇发病率和死亡率仍居高不下。我们将设施接生的水平与分娩护理的简要衡量标准进行了比较,并量化了差距:我们根据分娩类型(家庭、低级设施或医院)、熟练助产人员、产后 24 小时或更长时间的住院时间以及产后 48 小时内的健康检查来估算分娩护理得分。我们从 333,316 名年龄在 15-49 岁、在过去两年中活产儿的女性中获得了数据,这些数据来自 71 个在 2013 年至 2020 年间进行过全国代表性调查的国家。我们计算了设施接生和分娩护理覆盖率估计数,以评估差距。我们根据国家特征(包括国家孕产妇死亡率)对分析进行了分层,以评估覆盖率差距的大小,我们还评估了通过覆盖率级联错失的机会。我们研究了孕产妇死亡率与分娩护理覆盖率之间的关系:不同国家的分娩护理覆盖率各不相同,从苏丹的 24% 到古巴的 100% 不等。覆盖率中位数为 70%,四分位数范围为 30 个百分点(55% 至 85%)。级联显示,虽然 76% 的妇女在医疗机构分娩,但只有 41% 的妇女接受了所有四项干预措施。所有产妇死亡率水平都存在覆盖率差距。在产妇死亡率为 100 或以上的国家,最高和最低财富五分位数之间的差距最大,而在产妇死亡率低于 100 的国家,差距有所缩小。分娩护理指标与产妇死亡率呈负相关:结论:除了在分娩和产后期间为妇女提供高质量的循证护理外,还需要解决分娩护理方面的差距,这些差距出现在国家内部和国家之间、财富五分位数和产妇死亡率阶段之间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Delivery and postnatal care among women in 71 low- and middle-income countries: analyzing coverage gaps using household surveys.

Background: High levels of maternal morbidity and mortality persist in low- and middle-income countries, despite increases in coverage of facility delivery and skilled assistance at delivery. We compared levels of facility birth to a summary delivery care measure and quantified gaps.

Methods: We approximated a delivery care score from type of delivery (home, lower-level facility, or hospital), skilled attendant at delivery, a stay of 24-or-more-hours after delivery, and a health check within 48-h after delivery. Data were obtained from 333,316 women aged 15-49 who had a live birth in the previous 2 years, and from 71 countries with nationally representative surveys between 2013 and 2020. We computed facility delivery and delivery care coverage estimates to assess the gap. We stratified the analysis by country characteristics, including the national maternal mortality ratio (MMR), to assess the size of coverage gaps, and we assessed missed opportunities through coverage cascades. We looked at the association between MMR and delivery care coverage.

Results: Delivery care coverage varied by country, ranging from 24% in Sudan to 100% in Cuba. Median coverage was 70% with an interquartile range of 30 percentage points (55% and 85%). The cascade showed that while 76% of women delivered in a facility, only 41% received all four interventions. Coverage gaps exist across all MMR levels. Gaps between highest and lowest wealth quintiles were greatest in countries with MMR levels of 100 or higher, and the gap narrowed in countries with MMR levels below 100. The delivery care indicator had a negative association with MMR.

Conclusions: In addition to providing high-quality evidenced-based care to women during birth and the postpartum period, there is also a need to address gaps in delivery care, which occur within and between countries, wealth quintiles, and MMR phases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
期刊最新文献
Determinants of retroplacental hematoma at the Maradi mother and child health center, Niger: a case‒control study. Providers' perspective on vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a qualitative systematic review. The impact of scaling and root planning combined with mouthwash during pregnancy on preterm birth and low birth weight: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of peripartum cardiomyopathy in North Africa: insights from a single-center observational study in Tunisia. Perspectives of midwives on respectful maternity care.
×
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