Search

Background: Birthing in health facilities in India has increased over the last few years, yet maternal and neonatal mortality rates remain high. Clinical mentoring with case sheets or checklists for nurses is viewed as essential for on-going knowledge transfer, particularly where basic training is inadequate. This paper summarizes a study of the effect of such a programme on staff knowledge and skills in a randomized trial of 295 nurses working in 108 Primary Health Centres (PHCs) in Karnataka, India.Methods: Stratifying by district, half of the PHCs were randomly assigned to be intervention sites and provided with regular mentoring visits where case sheet/checklists were a central job and teaching aid, and half to be control sites, where no support was provided except provision of case sheets. Nurses' knowledge and skills around normal labour, labour complications and neonate issues were tested before the intervention began and again one year later. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the effect of mentoring and case sheets.Results: Overall, on none of the 3 measures, did case sheet use without mentoring add anything to the basic nursing training when controlling for other factors. Only individuals who used both case-sheets and received mentoring scored significantly higher on the normal labour and neonate indices, scoring almost twice as high as those who only used case-sheets. This group was also associated with significantly higher scores on the complications of labour index, with their scores 2.3 times higher on average than the case sheet only control group. Individuals from facilities with 21 or more deliveries in a month tended to fare worse on all 3 indices. There were no differences in outcomes according to district or years of experience.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that provision of case sheets or checklists alone is insufficient to improve knowledge and practices. However, on-site mentoring in combination with case sheets can have a demonstrable effect on improving nurse knowledge and skills around essential obstetric and neonatal care in remote rural areas of India. We recommend scaling up of this mentoring model in order to improve staff knowledge and skills and reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in India.Trial Registration: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier No. NCT02004912 , November 27, 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2005-06, only 39 % of Indian women delivered in a health facility. Given that deliveries at home increase the risk of maternal mortality, it was in this context in 2005, that the Indian Government implemented the Janani Suraksha Yojana program that incentivizes poor women to give birth in a health facility by providing them with a cash transfer upon discharge. JSY helped raise institutional delivery to 74 % in the eight years since its implementation. Despite the success of the JSY in raising institutional delivery proportions, the large number of beneficiaries (105 million), and the cost of the program, there have been few qualitative studies exploring why women participate (or not) in the program. The objective of this paper was to explore this.Methods: In March 2013, we conducted 24 individual in-depth interviews with women who delivered within the previous 12 months in two districts of Madhya Pradesh, India. Qualitative framework analysis was used to analyze the data.Results: Our findings suggest that women's increased participation in the program reflect a shift in the social norm. Drivers of the shift include social pressure from the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) to deliver in a health facility, and a growing individual perception of the importance for 'safe' and 'easy' delivery which was most likely an expression of the new social norm. While the incentive was an important influence on many women's choices, others did not perceive it as an important consideration in their decision to deliver in a health facility. Many women reported procedural difficulties to receive the benefit. Retaining the cash incentive was also an issue due to out-of-pocket expenditures incurred at the facility. Non-participation was often unintentional and caused by personal circumstances, poor geographic access or driven by a perception of poor quality of care provided in program facilities.Conclusions: In summary, while the cash incentive was important for some women in facilitating an institutional birth, the shift in social norm (possibly in part facilitated by the program) and therefore their own perceptions has played a major role in them giving birth in facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]