TY - JOUR
T1 - Community-based maternal and newborn educational care packages for improving neonatal health and survival in low- and middle-income countries
AU - Lassi, Zohra S.
AU - Kedzior, Sophie G.E.
AU - Bhutta, Zulfiqar A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: WHO; Saving Newborn Lives Program of Save the Children USA, funded by the Bill & Melinda GatesFoundation
Funding Information:
Secondary outcomes: danger signs of severe illness, local infections, diarrhoea, general danger signs, pneumonia Funding: study was funded by the World Health Organization, Geneva (through an umbrella grant from USAID); the United Nations Children’s Fund, New Delhi; and the GLOBVAC Program of the Research Council of Norway through grant No. 183722. Individual scientists at WHO and Unicef contributed importantly to planning, analysis, and reporting of this study. However, the central bodies of these agencies and the Research Council of Norway had no influence on how data were collected, analysed, or presented
Funding Information:
Funding: WHO; Save the Children’s Saving Newborn Lives Programme from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and UK Department for International Development provided funding. Funders had no role in data gathering, data analysis, or writing of the report
Funding Information:
Funding: supported by a grant from Family Health Project of the Sindh government’s health department (for capital costs) and by the University of Birmingham (for data entry). There is no statement relating to involvement of these funding parties in the design and conduct of the study
Funding Information:
Funding: study was supported by the American University of Beirut Award (Regional Changing Child-birth Research Program at Faculty of Health Sciences supported by Wellcome Trust)
Funding Information:
Primary outcomes: 3 days postpartum (maternal or newborn complications detected or referred), day 10 and 9-week survey outcomes (care-seeking behaviours for mothers and newborns, knowledge and practice of infant care, nutrition, feeding, recognition of danger signs) Funding: this research was supported by Grand Challenges Canada, funding award number 0166–03. There is no statement related to involvement of these funding parties in the design and conduct of the study
Funding Information:
Secondary outcomes: facility deliveries, birth attendant home delivery practices (e.g. washed hands with soap), thermal care of newborns, early infant-feeding practices, health service utilisation (antepartum, intrapartum, postpartum) Funding: implementation and evaluation of women’s groups was funded by a Big Lottery Fund International Strategic Grant. This study was supported with funds from a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (085417ma /Z/08/Z). Sponsors did not participate in design and conduct of the study; in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript
Funding Information:
Funding: funded through a grant to Save the Children’s Saving Newborn Lives programme, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. No funding bodies had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, or decision to publish, nor in preparation of the manuscript
Funding Information:
Funding: interventions involved in the City Initiative for Newborn Health were funded by the ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth – Centre for Child Health and Nutrition. Evaluative aspects of the trial were funded from 2007 by The Wellcome Trust. DO was funded by a Wellcome Trust Fellowship (081052/ Z/06/Z). The funding agency had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript
Funding Information:
Both qualitative (researchers’ observations, interviews, group discussions, field visits) and quantitative data (community-based survey of mothers, survey conducted by midwives at township hospitals of women giving birth, and routine pregnancy and birth records) were used in this study Funding: financially supported by a grant from the Academy of Finland and a doctoral scholarship from the Finnish Ministry of Education (DPPH Programme). Analysis and reporting stage was partially funded by the European Commission INCO Programme, “Structural hinders to and promoters of good maternal care in rural China" - C HIMACA (015396)
Funding Information:
Secondary outcomes: rate of stillbirth (fresh and macerated), 7-day neonatal mortality, 28-day neonatal mortality, maternal death Funding: this trial was funded by grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH programme officers participated in protocol development and study monitoring and reviewed the manuscript
Funding Information:
Funding: jointly funded by University Research Council, Aga Khan University, Pakistan, and Saving Newborn Lives Initiative, Save the Children, US. There is no statement related to involvement of these funding parties in design and conduct of the study
Funding Information:
Primary outcomes: improved coverage of services for antenatal care, birth preparedness, skilled attendance at delivery, postnatal care, increase in healthy practices (breastfeeding, thermal care, hygiene) Funding: funds provided by Save the Children through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This supplement was funded by Save the Children’s Saving Newborn Lives programme through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. There is no statement related to involvement of these funding parties in design and conduct of the study
Funding Information:
Primary outcomes: antenatal and immediate newborn care behaviours, knowledge of danger signs, care-seeking for neonatal complications, neonatal mortality Funding: supported by the Wellcome Trust - Burroughs Wellcome Fund Infectious Disease Initiative 2000 and the Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition, Global Health Bureau, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the Global Research Activity Cooperative agreement with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (award HRN-A-00-96-90006-00). Support for data analysis and manuscript preparation was provided by the Saving Newborn Lives programme through a grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Save the Children-US. Sponsors had no role in study design, study implementation, or data analysis or interpretation, or in the decision to publish the paper
Funding Information:
Funding: Health Foundation, UK Department for International Development, Wellcome Trust, and the Big Lottery Fund (UK). Funders had no role in design of the study, data collection, data analysis or interpretation, or writing up of study findings, although they made a site visit early in the study implementation
Funding Information:
Funding: study was funded by the United States Agency for International Development, Delhi Mission, and the Saving Newborn Lives program of Save the Children US through a grant from the Bill and Melin-da Gates Foundation. There is no statement about the influence these funding sources had on design and cohort of the study
Funding Information:
Funding: funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), Swedish Research Council, and Uppsala University. The funding agency had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript
Funding Information:
Funding: the Hala project is supported by a collaborative grant from WHO and the Saving Newborn Lives (SNL) programme of Save the Children (USA), funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Funding Information:
Funding: project was funded by USAID, India Mission, through Global Research Activity Award # HRNA-00-96-90006-00 to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Funding Information:
Funding: funded by NICHD, USAID, UNICEF, World Health Organization, British Council, Government of Japan, and The Asia Foundation, and implemented by The Asia Foundation’s Islamabad office. There is no statement related to the involvement of these funding parties in design and conduct of the study
Funding Information:
Funding: funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through the Saving Newborn Lives programme of Save the Children, Unicef, the Laerdal Foundation, and the Batchworth Trust. Funders had no role in design and conduct of the study; in collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; nor in preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PY - 2019/11/5
Y1 - 2019/11/5
N2 - Background: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), health services are under-utilised, and several studies have reported improvements in neonatal outcomes following health education imparted to mothers in homes, at health units, or in hospitals. However, evaluating health educational strategy to deliver newborn care, such as one-to-one counselling or group counselling via peer or support groups, or delivered by health professionals, requires rigorous assessment of methodological design and quality, as well as assessment of cost-effectiveness, affordability, sustainability, and reproducibility in diverse health systems. Objectives: To compare a community health educational strategy versus no strategy or the existing approach to health education on maternal and newborn care in LMICs, as imparted to mothers or their family members specifically in community settings during the antenatal and/or postnatal period, in terms of effectiveness for improving neonatal health and survival (i.e. neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, access to health care, and cost). Search methods: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 May 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 May 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2 May 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Selection criteria: Community-based randomised controlled, cluster-randomised, or quasi-randomised controlled trials. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method and prepared 'Summary of findings' tables. Main results: We included in this review 33 original trials (reported in 62 separate articles), which were conducted across Africa and Central and South America, with most reported from Asia, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 33 community educational interventions provided, 16 included family members in educational counselling, most frequently the mother-in-law or the expectant father. Most studies (n = 14) required one-to-one counselling between a healthcare worker and a mother, and 12 interventions involved group counselling for mothers and occasionally family members; the remaining seven incorporated components of both counselling methods. Our analyses show that community health educational interventions had a significant impact on reducing overall neonatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.96; random-effects model; 26 studies; n = 553,111; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), early neonatal mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84; random-effects model; 15 studies that included 3 subsets from 3 studies; n = 321,588; I² = 86%; very low-quality evidence), late neonatal mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; random-effects model; 11 studies; n = 186,643; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), and perinatal mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.91; random-effects model; 15 studies; n = 262,613; I² = 81%; very low-quality evidence). Moreover, community health educational interventions increased utilisation of any antenatal care (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22; random-effects model; 18 studies; n = 307,528; I² = 96%) and initiation of breastfeeding (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.77; random-effects model; 19 studies; n = 126,375; I² = 99%). In contrast, community health educational interventions were found to have a non-significant impact on use of modern contraceptives (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.41; random-effects model; 3 studies; n = 22,237; I² = 80%); presence of skilled birth attendance at birth (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.25; random-effects model; 10 studies; n = 117,870; I² = 97%); utilisation of clean delivery kits (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.71 to 27.76; random-effects model; 2 studies; n = 17,087; I² = 98%); and care-seeking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27; random-effects model; 7 studies; n = 46,154; I² = 93%). Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted in seven studies demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness for intervention packages ranged between USD 910 and USD 11,975 for newborn lives saved and newborn deaths averted. For averted disability-adjusted life-year, costs ranged from USD 79 to USD 146, depending on the intervention strategy; for cost per year of lost lives averted, the most effective strategy was peer counsellors, and the cost was USD 33. Authors' conclusions: This review offers encouraging evidence on the value of integrating packages of interventions with educational components delivered by a range of community workers in group settings in LMICs, with groups consisting of mothers, and additional education for family members, for improved neonatal survival, especially early and late neonatal survival.
AB - Background: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), health services are under-utilised, and several studies have reported improvements in neonatal outcomes following health education imparted to mothers in homes, at health units, or in hospitals. However, evaluating health educational strategy to deliver newborn care, such as one-to-one counselling or group counselling via peer or support groups, or delivered by health professionals, requires rigorous assessment of methodological design and quality, as well as assessment of cost-effectiveness, affordability, sustainability, and reproducibility in diverse health systems. Objectives: To compare a community health educational strategy versus no strategy or the existing approach to health education on maternal and newborn care in LMICs, as imparted to mothers or their family members specifically in community settings during the antenatal and/or postnatal period, in terms of effectiveness for improving neonatal health and survival (i.e. neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, access to health care, and cost). Search methods: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 May 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 May 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2 May 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Selection criteria: Community-based randomised controlled, cluster-randomised, or quasi-randomised controlled trials. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method and prepared 'Summary of findings' tables. Main results: We included in this review 33 original trials (reported in 62 separate articles), which were conducted across Africa and Central and South America, with most reported from Asia, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 33 community educational interventions provided, 16 included family members in educational counselling, most frequently the mother-in-law or the expectant father. Most studies (n = 14) required one-to-one counselling between a healthcare worker and a mother, and 12 interventions involved group counselling for mothers and occasionally family members; the remaining seven incorporated components of both counselling methods. Our analyses show that community health educational interventions had a significant impact on reducing overall neonatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.96; random-effects model; 26 studies; n = 553,111; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), early neonatal mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84; random-effects model; 15 studies that included 3 subsets from 3 studies; n = 321,588; I² = 86%; very low-quality evidence), late neonatal mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; random-effects model; 11 studies; n = 186,643; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), and perinatal mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.91; random-effects model; 15 studies; n = 262,613; I² = 81%; very low-quality evidence). Moreover, community health educational interventions increased utilisation of any antenatal care (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22; random-effects model; 18 studies; n = 307,528; I² = 96%) and initiation of breastfeeding (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.77; random-effects model; 19 studies; n = 126,375; I² = 99%). In contrast, community health educational interventions were found to have a non-significant impact on use of modern contraceptives (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.41; random-effects model; 3 studies; n = 22,237; I² = 80%); presence of skilled birth attendance at birth (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.25; random-effects model; 10 studies; n = 117,870; I² = 97%); utilisation of clean delivery kits (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.71 to 27.76; random-effects model; 2 studies; n = 17,087; I² = 98%); and care-seeking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27; random-effects model; 7 studies; n = 46,154; I² = 93%). Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted in seven studies demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness for intervention packages ranged between USD 910 and USD 11,975 for newborn lives saved and newborn deaths averted. For averted disability-adjusted life-year, costs ranged from USD 79 to USD 146, depending on the intervention strategy; for cost per year of lost lives averted, the most effective strategy was peer counsellors, and the cost was USD 33. Authors' conclusions: This review offers encouraging evidence on the value of integrating packages of interventions with educational components delivered by a range of community workers in group settings in LMICs, with groups consisting of mothers, and additional education for family members, for improved neonatal survival, especially early and late neonatal survival.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074550293&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD007647.pub2
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD007647.pub2
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31686427
AN - SCOPUS:85074550293
SN - 1361-6137
VL - 2019
JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
IS - 11
M1 - CD007647
ER -