Search

Background: Understanding causes and contributors to maternal mortality is critical from a quality improvement perspective to inform decision making and monitor progress toward ending preventable maternal mortality. The indicator "maternal death review coverage" is defined as the percentage of maternal deaths occurring in a facility that are audited. Both the numerator and denominator of this indicator are subject to misclassification errors, underreporting, and bias. This study assessed the validity of the indicator by examining both its numerator—the number and quality of death reviews—and denominator—the number of facility-based maternal deaths and comparing estimates of the indicator obtained from facility- versus district-level data. Methods and findings: We collected data on the number of maternal deaths and content of death reviews from all health facilities serving as birthing sites in 12 districts in three countries: Argentina, Ghana, and India. Additional data were extracted from health management information systems on the number and dates of maternal deaths and maternal death reviews reported from health facilities to the district-level. We tabulated the percentage of facility deaths with evidence of a review, the percentage of reviews that met the World Health Organization defined standard for maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response. Results were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics of women and facility location and type. We compared these estimates to that obtained using district-level data. and looked at evidence of the review at the district/provincial level. Study teams reviewed facility records at 34 facilities in Argentina, 51 facilities in Ghana, and 282 facilities in India. In total, we found 17 deaths in Argentina, 14 deaths in Ghana, and 58 deaths in India evidenced at facilities. Overall, >80% of deaths had evidence of a review at facilities. In India, a much lower percentage of deaths occurring at secondary-level facilities (61.1%) had evidence of a review compared to deaths in tertiary-level facilities (92.1%). In all three countries, only about half of deaths in each country had complete reviews: 58.8% (n = 10) in Argentina, 57.2% (n = 8) in Ghana, and 41.1% (n = 24) in India. Dramatic reductions in indicator value were seen in several subnational geographic areas, including Gonda and Meerut in India and Sunyani in Ghana. For example, in Gonda only three of the 18 reviews conducted at facilities met the definitional standard (16.7%), which caused the value of the indicator to decrease from 81.8% to 13.6%. Stratification by women's sociodemographic factors suggested systematic differences in completeness of reviews by women's age, place of residence, and timing of death. Conclusions: Our study assessed the validity of an important indicator for ending preventable deaths: the coverage of reviews of maternal deaths occurring in facilities in three study settings. We found discrepancies in deaths recorded at facilities and those reported to districts from facilities. Further, few maternal death reviews met global quality standards for completeness. The value of the calculated indicator masked inaccuracies in counts of both deaths and reviews and gave no indication of completeness, thus undermining the ultimate utility of the measure in achieving an accurate measure of coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a global shortage of midwives, whose services are essential to meet the healthcare needs of pregnant women and newborns. Evidence suggests that if enough midwives, trained and regulated to global standards, were deployed worldwide, maternal, and perinatal mortality would decline significantly. Health workforce planning estimates the number of midwives needed to achieve population coverage of midwifery interventions. However, to provide a valid measure of midwifery care coverage, an indicator must consider not only the raw number of midwives, but also their scope and competency. The tasks midwives are authorized to deliver and their competency to perform essential skills and behaviors provide crucial information for understanding the availability of safe, high-quality midwifery services. Without reliable estimates for an adequate midwifery workforce, progress toward ending preventable maternal and perinatal mortality will continue to be uneven. The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) suggest standards for midwifery scope of practice and competencies. This paper compares national midwifery regulations, scope, and competencies in three countries to the ILO and ICM standards to validate measures of midwife density. We also assess midwives' self-reported skills/behaviors from the ICM competencies and their acquisition. Methods and findings: We compared midwives' scope of practice in Argentina, Ghana, and India to the ILO Tasks and ICM Essential Competencies for Midwifery Practice. We compared midwives self-reported skills/behaviors with the ICM Competencies. Univariate and bivariate analysis was conducted to describe the association between midwives' skills and selected characteristics. National scopes of practice matched two ILO tasks in Argentina, four in India, and all in Ghana. National standards partially reflected ICM skills in Categories 2, 3, and 4 (pre-pregnancy and antenatal care; care during labor and birth; and ongoing care of women and newborns, respectively) in Argentina (range 11% to 67%), mostly in India (range 74% to 100%) and completely in Ghana (100% match). 1,266 midwives surveyed reported considerable variation in competency for skills and behaviors across ICM Category 2, 3, and 4. Most midwives reported matching skills and behaviors around labor and childbirth (Category 2). Higher proportions of midwives reported gaining basic skills through in-service training and on-job-experience than in pre-service training. Conclusion: Estimating the density of midwives needed for an adequate midwifery workforce capable of providing effective population coverage is predicated on a valid numerator. A reliable and valid count of midwives to meet population needs assumes that each midwife counted has the authority to exercise the same behaviors and reflects the ability to perform them with comparable competency. Our results demonstrate variation in midwifery scopes of practice and self-reported competencies in comparison to global standards that pose a threat to the reliability and validity of the numerator in measures of midwife density, and suggest the potential for expanded authorization and improved education and training to meet global reference standards for midwifery practice has not been fully realized. Although the universally recognized standard, this study demonstrates that the complex, composite descriptions of skills and behaviors in the ICM competencies make them difficult to use as benchmark measures with any precision, as they are not defined or structured to serve as valid measures for assessing workforce competency. A simplified, content-validated measurement system is needed to facilitate evaluation of the competency of the midwifery workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The concept of universal health coverage (UHC) encompasses both access to essential health services and freedom from financial harm. The World Health Organization's Maternal Newborn Child and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Policy Survey collects data on policies that have the potential to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. The indicator, "Are the following health services provided free of charge at point-of-use in the public sector for women of reproductive age?", captures the free provision of 13 key categories of maternal health-related services, to measure the success of UHC implementation with respect to maternal health. However, it is unknown whether it provides a valid measure of the provision of free care. Therefore, this study compared free maternal healthcare laws and policies against actual practice in three countries. Methods and findings: We conducted a cross-sectional study in four districts/provinces in Argentina, Ghana, and India. We performed desk reviews to identify free care laws and policies at the country level and compared those with reports at the global level. We conducted exit interviews with women aged 15–49 years who used a component service or their accompanying persons, as well as with facility chief financial officers or billing administrators, to determine if women had out-of-pocket expenditures associated with accessing services. For designated free services, prevalence of expenditures at the service level for women and reports by financial officers of women ever having expenditures associated with services designated as free were computed. These three sources of data (desk review, surveys of women and administrators) were triangulated, and chi-square analysis was conducted to determine if charges were levied differentially by standard equity stratifiers. Designation of services as free matched what was reported in the MNCAH Policy Survey for Argentina and Ghana. In India, insecticide-treated bed nets and testing and treatment for syphilis were only designated as free for selected populations, differing from the WHO MNCAH Policy Survey. Among 1046, 923, and 1102 women and accompanying persons who were interviewed in Argentina, Ghana, and India, respectively, the highest prevalence of associated expenditures among women who received a component service in each setting was for cesarean section in Argentina (26%, 24/92); family planning in Ghana (78.4%, 69/88); and postnatal maternal care in India (94.4%, 85/90). The highest prevalence of women ever having out of pocket expenditures associated with accessing any free service reported by financial officers was 9.1% (2/22) in Argentina, 64.1% (93/145) in Ghana, and 29.7% (47/158) in India. Across the three countries, self-reports of out of pocket expenditures were significantly associated with district/province and educational status of women. Additionally, wealth quintile in Argentina and age in India were significantly associated with women reporting out of pocket expenditures. Conclusions: Free care laws were largely accurately reported in the global MNCAH policy database. Notably, we found that women absorbed both direct and indirect costs and made both formal and informal payments for services designated as free. Therefore, the policy indicator does not provide a valid reflection of UHC in the three settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Midwives' authorization to deliver the seven basic emergency obstetric and newborn care (BEmONC) functions is a core policy indicator in global monitoring frameworks, yet little evidence supports whether such data are captured accurately, or whether authorization demonstrates convergence with midwives' skills and actual provision of services. In this study, we aimed to validate the data reported in global monitoring frameworks (criterion validity) and to determine whether a measure of authorization is a valid indicator for BEmONC availability (construct validity). Methods: We conducted a validation study in Argentina, Ghana, and India. To assess accuracy of the reported data on midwives' authorization to provide BEmONC services, we reviewed national regulatory documents and compared with reported country-specific data in Countdown to 2030 and the World Health Organization Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health Policy Survey. To assess whether authorization demonstrates convergent validity with midwives' skills, training, and performance of BEmONC signal functions, we surveyed 1257 midwives/midwifery professionals and assessed variance. Results: We detected discrepancies between data reported in the global monitoring frameworks and the national regulatory framework in all three countries. We found wide variations between midwives' authorization to perform signal functions and their self-reported skills and actual performance within the past 90 days. The percentage of midwives who reported performing all signal functions for which they were authorized per country-specific regulations was 17% in Argentina, 23% in Ghana, and 31% in India. Additionally, midwives in all three countries reported performing some signal functions that the national regulations did not authorize. Conclusion: Our findings suggest limitations in criterion and construct validity for this indicator in Argentina, Ghana, and India. Some signal functions such as assisted vaginal delivery may be obsolete based on current practice patterns. Findings suggest the need to re-examine the emergency interventions that should be included as BEmONC signal functions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global mechanisms have been established to monitor and facilitate state accountability regarding the legal status of abortion. However, there is little evidence describing whether these mechanisms capture accurate data. Moreover, it is uncertain whether the "legal status of abortion" is a valid proxy measure for access to safe abortion, pursuant to the global goals of reducing preventable maternal mortality and advancing reproductive rights. Therefore, this study sought to assess the accuracy of reported monitoring data, and to determine whether evidence supports the consistent application of domestic law by health care professionals such that legality of abortion functions as a valid indicator of access. Methods and findings: We conducted a validation study using three countries as illustrative case examples: Argentina, Ghana, and India. We compared data reported by two global monitoring mechanisms (Countdown to 2030 and the Global Abortion Policies Database) against domestic source documents collected through in-depth policy review. We then surveyed health care professionals authorized to perform abortions about their knowledge of abortion law in their countries and their personal attitudes and practices regarding provision of legal abortion. We compared professionals' responses to the domestic legal frameworks described in the source documents to establish whether professionals consistently applied the law as written. This analysis revealed weaknesses in the criterion validity and construct validity of the "legal status of abortion" indicator. We detected discrepancies between data reported by the global monitoring and accountability mechanisms and the domestic policy reviews, even though all referenced the same source documents. Further, provider surveys unearthed important context-specific barriers to legal abortion not captured by the indicator, including conscientious objection and imposition of restrictions at the provider's discretion. Conclusions: Taken together, these findings denote weaknesses in the indicator "legal status of abortion" as a proxy for access to safe abortion, as well as inaccuracies in data reported to global monitoring mechanisms. This information provides important groundwork for strengthening indicators for monitoring access to abortion and for renewed advocacy to assure abortion rights worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]