Search

Objective: The aim of this article is to describe the incidence and characteristics of pregnancy-related death in low- and middle-resource settings, in relation to the availability of key obstetric resources.Design: This is a secondary analysis of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting: This trial was undertaken at ten sites across eight low- and middle-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, India and Haiti.Population: Institutional-level consent was obtained and all women presenting for maternity care were eligible for inclusion.Methods: Pregnancy-related deaths were collected prospectively from routine data sources and active case searching.Main Outcome Measures: Pregnancy-related death, place, timing and age of maternal death, and neonatal outcomes in women with this outcome.Results: Over 20 months, in 536 233 deliveries there were 998 maternal deaths (18.6/10 000, range 28/10 000-630/10 000). The leading causes of death were obstetric haemorrhage (36.0%, n = 359), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (20.6%, n = 206), sepsis (14.1%, n = 141) and other (26.5%, n = 264). Approximately a quarter of deaths occurred prior to delivery (28.4%, n = 283), 35.7% (n = 356) occurred on the day of delivery and 35.9% (n = 359) occurred after delivery. Half of maternal deaths (50.6%; n = 505) occurred in women aged 20-29 years, 10.3% (n = 103) occurred in women aged under 20 years, 34.5% (n = 344) occurred in women aged 30-39 years and 4.6% (n = 46) occurred in women aged ≥40 years. There was no measured association between the availability of key obstetric resources and the rate of pregnancy-related death.Conclusions: The large variation in the rate of pregnancy-related death, irrespective of resource availability, emphasises that inequality and inequity in health care persists.Tweetable Abstract: Inequality and inequity in pregnancy-related death persists globally, irrespective of resource availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions aimed at reducing maternal mortality are increasingly complex. Understanding how complex interventions are delivered, to whom, and how they work is key in ensuring their rapid scale-up. We delivered a vital signs triage intervention into routine maternity care in eight low- and middle-income countries with the aim of reducing a composite outcome of morbidity and mortality. This was a pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial. In this study, we present the results of the mixed-methods process evaluation. The aim was to describe implementation and local context and integrate results to determine whether differences in the effect of the intervention across sites could be explained.Methods: The duration and content of implementation, uptake of the intervention and its impact on clinical management were recorded. These were integrated with interviews (n = 36) and focus groups (n = 19) at 3 months and 6-9 months after implementation. In order to determine the effect of implementation on effectiveness, measures were ranked and averaged across implementation domains to create a composite implementation strength score and then correlated with the primary outcome.Results: Overall, 61.1% (n = 2747) of health care providers were trained in the intervention (range 16.5% to 89.2%) over a mean of 10.8 days. Uptake and acceptability of the intervention was good. All clusters demonstrated improved availability of vital signs equipment. There was an increase in the proportion of women having their blood pressure measured in pregnancy following the intervention (79.2% vs. 97.6%; OR 1.30 (1.29-1.31)) and no significant change in referral rates (3.7% vs. 4.4% OR 0.89; (0.39-2.05)). Availability of resources and acceptable, effective referral systems influenced health care provider interaction with the intervention. There was no correlation between process measures within or between domains, or between the composite score and the primary outcome.Conclusions: This process evaluation has successfully described the quantity and quality of implementation. Variation in implementation and context did not explain differences in the effectiveness of the intervention on maternal mortality and morbidity. We suggest future trials should prioritise in-depth evaluation of local context and clinical pathways.Trial Registration: Trial registration: ISRCTN41244132 . Registered on 2 Feb 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]