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]

Background: The study aims to assess the discordance between self-reported and observed measures of mistreatment of women during childbirth in public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India, as well as correlates of these measures and their discordance. Methods: Cross sectional data were collected through direct observation of deliveries and follow-up interviews with women (n = 875) delivering in 81 public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh. Participants were surveyed on demographics, mistreatment during childbirth, and maternal and newborn complications. Provider characteristics (training, age) were obtained through interviews with providers, and observation data were obtained from checklists completed by trained nurse investigators to document quality of care at delivery. Mistreatment was assessed via self-report and observed measures which included 17 and 6 items respectively. Cohen's kappas assessed concordance between the 6 items common in the self-report and observed measures. Regression models assessed associations between characteristics of women and providers for each outcome. Results: Most participants (77.3%) self-reported mistreatment in at least 1 of the 17-item measure. For the 6 items included in both self-report and observations, 9.1% of women self-reported mistreatment, whereas observers reported 22.4% of women being mistreated. Cohen's kappas indicated mostly fair to moderate concordance. Regression analyses found that multiparous birth (AOR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.06-2.13), post-partum maternal complications (AOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.34-3.06); new-born complications (AOR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1. 96-4.03) and not having an Skilled Birth Attendant (SBA) trained provider (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.05-2.04) were associated with increased risk for mistreatment as measured by self-report. In contrast, only provider characteristics like older provider (AOR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.02-1.05) and provider not trained in SBA (AOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.02-2.02) were associated with mistreatment as measured through observations. Younger age at marriage (AOR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78-0.95) and provider characteristics (older provider AOR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.09; provider not trained in SBA AOR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.92-0.99) were associated with discordance (based on mistreatment reported by observer but not by women). Conclusion: Provider mistreatment during childbirth is prevalent in Uttar Pradesh and may be under-reported by women, particularly when they are younger or when providers are older or less trained. The findings warrant programmatic action as well as more research to better understand the context and drivers of both behavior and reporting. Trial registration: CTRI/2015/09/006219. Registered 28 September 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective, scalable strategies to improve maternal, fetal, and newborn health and reduce preventable morbidity and mortality are urgently needed in low- and middle-income countries. Building on the successes of previous checklist-based programs, the World Health Organization (WHO) and partners led the development of the Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC), a 28-item list of evidence-based practices linked with improved maternal and newborn outcomes. Pilot-testing of the Checklist in Southern India demonstrated dramatic improvements in adherence by health workers to essential childbirth-related practices (EBPs). The BetterBirth Trial seeks to measure the effectiveness of SCC impact on EBPs, deaths, and complications at a larger scale. Methods/design: This matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled, adaptive trial will be conducted in 120 facilities across 24 districts in Uttar Pradesh, India. Study sites, identified according to predefined eligibility criteria, were matched by measured covariates before randomization. The intervention, the SCC embedded in a quality improvement program, consists of leadership engagement, a 2-day educational launch of the SCC, and support through placement of a trained peer "coach" to provide supportive supervision and real-time data feedback over an 8-month period with decreasing intensity. A facility-based childbirth quality coordinator is trained and supported to drive sustained behavior change after the BetterBirth team leaves the facility. Study participants are birth attendants and women and their newborns who present to the study facilities for childbirth at 60 intervention and 60 control sites. The primary outcome is a composite measure including maternal death, maternal severe morbidity, stillbirth, and newborn death, occurring within 7 days after birth. The sample size (n = 171,964) was calculated to detect a 15% reduction in the primary outcome. Adherence by health workers to EBPs will be measured in a subset of births (n = 6000). The trial will be conducted in close collaboration with key partners including the Governments of India and Uttar Pradesh, the World Health Organization, an expert Scientific Advisory Committee, an experienced local implementing organization (Population Services International, PSI), and frontline facility leaders and workers. Discussion: If effective, the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program could be a powerful health facilitystrengthening intervention to improve quality of care and reduce preventable harm to women and newborns, with millions of potential beneficiaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Expanding institutional deliveries is a policy priority to achieve MDG5. India adopted a policy to encourage facility births through a conditional cash incentive scheme, yet 28% of deliveries still occur at home. In this context, it is important to understand the care experience of women who have delivered at home, and also at health facilities, analyzing any differences, so that services can be improved to promote facility births. This study aims to understand women's experience of delivery care during home and facility births, and the factors that influence women's decisions regarding their next place of delivery.Method: A community-based cross-sectional survey was undertaken in a district of Jharkhand state in India. Interviews with 500 recently delivered women (210 delivered at facility and 290 delivered at home) included socio-demographic characteristics, experience of their recent delivery, and preference of future delivery site. Data analysis included frequencies, binary and multiple logistic regressions.Results: There is no major difference in the experience of care between home and facility births, the only difference in care being with regard to pain relief through massage, injection and low cost of delivery for those having home births. 75% women wanted to deliver their next child at a facility, main reasons being availability of medicine (29.4%) and perceived health benefits for mother and baby (15%). Women with higher education (AOR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04-3.07), women who were above 25 years (AOR = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.26-3.64), who currently delivered at facility (AOR = 5.19, 95% CI = 2.97-9.08) and had health problem post-delivery (AOR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.08-3.19) were significant predictors of future facility-based delivery.Conclusion: The predictors for facility deliveries include, availability of medicines and supplies, potential health benefits for the mother and newborn and the perception of good care from the providers. There is a growing preference for facility delivery particularly among women with higher age group, education, income and those who had antennal checkup. In order to uptake facility births, the quality improvement initiatives should regularly assess and address women's experiences of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]