Search

Abstract Introduction Uganda has high maternal, neonatal, and under-five mortality rates. This study documents stakeholder perspectives on best practices in a maternal and newborn health (MNH) quality-improvement programme implemented in the West Nile region of Uganda to improve delivery and utilisation of MNH services. Methods This exploratory cross-sectional qualitative study, conducted at the end of 2021, captured the perspectives of stakeholders representing the different levels of the healthcare system. Data were collected in four districts through: interviews with key informants working at all levels of the health system; focus group discussions with parents and caretakers and with community health workers; and interviews with individual community members whose lives had been impacted by the MNH programme. The initial content analysis was followed by a deductive synthesis pitched according to the different levels of the health system and the health-systems building blocks. Results The findings are summarised according to the health-systems building blocks and an account is given of three of the interventions most valued by participants: (1) data use for evidence-based decision making (with regard to human resources, essential reproductive health commodities, and financing); (2) establishment of special newborn care units and high-dependency maternity units at district hospitals and training of the health workforce (also with reference to other infrastructural improvements such as the provision of water, sanitation and hygiene facilities at health facilities); and (3) community referral of pregnant women through a commercial motorcycle voucher referral system. Conclusion The MNH programme in the West Nile region adopted a holistic and system-wide approach to addressing the key bottlenecks in the planning, delivery, and monitoring of quality MNH services. There was general stakeholder appreciation across the board that the interventions had the potential to improve quality of care and newborn and maternal health outcomes. However, as the funding was largely donor-driven, questions about government ownership and sustainability in the context of limited resources remain.

Abstract Background The standard face-to-face training for the integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) continues to be plagued by concerns of low coverage of trainees, the prolonged absence of trainees from the health facility to attend training and the high cost of training. Consequently, the distance learning IMCI training model is increasingly being promoted to address some of these challenges in resource-limited settings. This paper examines participants’ accounts of the paper-based IMCI distance learning training programme in three district councils in Mbeya region, Tanzania. Methods A cross-sectional qualitative descriptive design was employed as part of an endline evaluation study of the management of possible serious bacterial infection in Busokelo, Kyela and Mbarali district councils of Mbeya Region in Tanzania. Key informant interviews were conducted with purposefully selected policymakers, partners, programme managers and healthcare workers, including beneficiaries and training facilitators. Results About 60 key informant interviews were conducted, of which 53% of participants were healthcare workers, including nurses, clinicians and pharmacists, and 22% were healthcare administrators, including district medical officers, reproductive and child health coordinators and programme officers. The findings indicate that the distance learning IMCI training model (DIMCI) was designed to address concerns about the standard IMCI model by enhancing efficiency, increasing outputs and reducing training costs. DIMCI included a mix of brief face-to-face orientation sessions, several weeks of self-directed learning, group discussions and brief face-to-face review sessions with facilitators. The DIMCI course covered topics related to management of sick newborns, referral decisions and reporting with nurses and clinicians as the main beneficiaries of the training. The problems with DIMCI included technological challenges related to limited access to proper learning technology (e.g., computers) and unfriendly learning materials. Personal challenges included work-study-family demands, and design and coordination challenges, including low financial incentives, which contributed to participants defaulting, and limited mentorship and follow-up due to limited funding and transport. Conclusion DIMCI was implemented successfully in rural Tanzania. It facilitated the training of many healthcare workers at low cost and resulted in improved knowledge, competence and confidence among healthcare workers in managing sick newborns. However, technological, personal, and design and coordination challenges continue to face learners in rural areas; these will need to be addressed to maximize the success of DIMCI.

Abstract Common perinatal mental disorders are the most frequent complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, and the prevalence among women in low- and middle-income countries is the highest at nearly 20%. Women are the cornerstone of a healthy and prosperous society and until their mental health is taken as seriously as their physical wellbeing, we will not improve maternal mortality, morbidity and the ability of women to thrive. On the heels of several international efforts to put perinatal mental health on the global agenda, we propose seven urgent actions that the international community, governments, health systems, academia, civil society, and individuals should take to ensure that women everywhere have access to high-quality, respectful care for both their physical and mental wellbeing. Addressing perinatal mental health promotion, prevention, early intervention and treatment of common perinatal mental disorders must be a global priority.

Abstract Background Kangaroo mother care (KMC) reduces mortality among stable neonates ≤2000 g. Lack of data tracking coverage and quality of KMC in both surveys and routine information systems impedes scale-up. This paper evaluates KMC measurement as part of the Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) study. Methods The EN-BIRTH observational mixed-methods study was conducted in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania from 2017 to 2018. Clinical observers collected time-stamped data as gold standard for mother-baby pairs in KMC wards/corners. To assess accuracy, we compared routine register-recorded and women’s exit survey-reported coverage to observed data, using different recommended denominator options (≤2000 g and ≤ 2499 g). We analysed gaps in quality of provision and experience of KMC. In the Tanzanian hospitals, we assessed daily skin-to-skin duration/dose and feeding frequency. Qualitative data were collected from health workers and data collectors regarding barriers and enablers to routine register design, filling and use. Results Among 840 mother-baby pairs, compared to observed 100% coverage, both exit-survey reported (99.9%) and register-recorded coverage (92.9%) were highly valid measures with high sensitivity. KMC specific registers outperformed general registers. Enablers to register recording included perceptions of data usefulness, while barriers included duplication of data elements and overburdened health workers. Gaps in KMC quality were identified for position components including wearing a hat. In Temeke Tanzania, 10.6% of babies received daily KMC skin-to-skin duration/dose of ≥20 h and a further 75.3% received 12–19 h. Regular feeding ≥8 times/day was observed for 36.5% babies in Temeke Tanzania and 14.6% in Muhimbili Tanzania. Cup-feeding was the predominant assisted feeding method. Family support during admission was variable, grandmothers co-provided KMC more often in Bangladesh. No facility arrangements for other family members were reported by 45% of women at exit survey. Conclusions Routine hospital KMC register data have potential to track coverage from hospital KMC wards/corners. Women accurately reported KMC at exit survey and evaluation for population-based surveys could be considered. Measurement of content, quality and experience of KMC need consensus on definitions. Prioritising further KMC measurement research is important so that high quality data can be used to accelerate scale-up of high impact care for the most vulnerable.

Abstract Background An estimated 30 million neonates require inpatient care annually, many with life-threatening infections. Appropriate antibiotic management is crucial, yet there is no routine measurement of coverage. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) study aimed to validate maternal and newborn indicators to inform measurement of coverage and quality of care. This paper reports validation of reported antibiotic coverage by exit survey of mothers for hospitalized newborns with clinically-defined infections, including sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia. Methods EN-BIRTH study was conducted in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania (July 2017–July 2018). Neonates were included based on case definitions to focus on term/near-term, clinically-defined infection syndromes (sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia), excluding major congenital abnormalities. Clinical management was abstracted from hospital inpatient case notes (verification) which was considered as the gold standard against which to validate accuracy of women’s report. Exit surveys were conducted using questions similar to The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) approach for coverage of childhood pneumonia treatment. We compared survey-report to case note verified, pooled across the five sites using random effects meta-analysis. Results A total of 1015 inpatient neonates admitted in the five hospitals met inclusion criteria with clinically-defined infection syndromes. According to case note verification, 96.7% received an injectable antibiotic, although only 14.5% of them received the recommended course of at least 7 days. Among women surveyed (n = 910), 98.8% (95% CI: 97.8–99.5%) correctly reported their baby was admitted to a neonatal ward. Only 47.1% (30.1–64.5%) reported their baby’s diagnosis in terms of sepsis, meningitis, or pneumonia. Around three-quarters of women reported their baby received an injection whilst in hospital, but 12.3% reported the correct antibiotic name. Only 10.6% of the babies had a blood culture and less than 1% had a lumbar puncture. Conclusions Women’s report during exit survey consistently underestimated the denominator (reporting the baby had an infection), and even more so the numerator (reporting known injectable antibiotics). Admission to the neonatal ward was accurately reported and may have potential as a contact point indicator for use in household surveys, similar to institutional births. Strengthening capacity and use of laboratory diagnostics including blood culture are essential to promote appropriate use of antibiotics. To track quality of neonatal infection management, we recommend using inpatient records to measure specifics, requiring more research on standardised inpatient records.