Search

Summary: Background: Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) alone contributed to 42% of global stillbirths in 2019, and the rate of stillbirth reduction has remained slow. There has been an increased uptake of community-based interventions to combat stillbirth in the region, but the effects of these interventions have been poorly assessed. Our objectives were to examine the effect of community-based interventions on stillbirth in SSA. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched eight databases (MEDLINE [OvidSP], Embase [OvidSP], Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation index [Web of Science Core Collection], CINAHL [EBSCOhost] and Global Index Medicus) and four grey literature sources from January 1, 2000 to July 7, 2023 for relevant studies from SSA. Community-based interventions targeting stillbirths solely or as part of complex interventions, with or without hospital interventions were included, while hospital-only interventions, microcredit schemes and maternity waiting home interventions were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's tools. The study outcome was odds of stillbirth in intervention versus control communities. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using random-effects models, and subgroup analyses were performed by intervention type and strategies. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger’s test. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021296623. Findings: Of the 4223 records identified, seventeen studies from fifteen SSA countries were eligible for inclusion. One study had four arms (community only, hospital only, community and hospital, and control arms), so information was extracted from each arm. Analysis of 13 of the 17 studies which had community-only intervention showed that the odds of stillbirth did not vary significantly between community-based intervention and control groups (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78–1.17, I2 = 57%, p ≤ 0.01, n = 63,884). However, analysis of four (out of five) studies that included both community and health facility components found that in comparison with community only interventions, this combination strategy significantly reduced the odds of stillbirth by 17% (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.79–0.87, I2 = 11%, p = 0.37, n = 244,868), after excluding a study with high risk of bias. The quality of the 17 studies were graded as poor (n = 2), fair (n = 9) and good (n = 6). Interpretation: Community-based interventions alone, without strengthening the quality and capacity of health facilities, are unlikely to have a substantial effect on reducing stillbirths in SSA. Funding: Nuffield Department of Population Health, Balliol College, the Clarendon Fund, Medical Research Council.

Summary: Background: Community-based interventions are increasingly being implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for stillbirth prevention, but the nature of these interventions, their reporting and acceptability are poorly assessed. In addition to understanding their effectiveness, complete reporting of the methods, results and intervention acceptability is essential as it could potentially reduce research waste from replication of inadequately implemented and unacceptable interventions. We conducted a systematic review to investigate these aspects of community-based interventions for preventing stillbirths in SSA. Methods: In this systematic review, eight databases (MEDLINE(OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation index (Web of Science Core Collection), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Global Index Medicus) and four grey literature sources were searched from January 1, 2000 to July 7, 2023 for relevant quantitative and qualitative studies from SSA (PROSPERO-CRD42021296623). Following deduplication, abstract screening and full-text review, studies were included if the interventions were community-based with or without a health facility component. The main outcomes were types of community-based interventions, completeness of intervention reporting using the TIDier (Template for Intervention Description and replication) checklist, and themes related to intervention acceptability identified using a theoretical framework. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's tools. Findings: Thirty-nine reports from thirty-four studies conducted in 18 SSA countries were eligible for inclusion. Four types of interventions were identified: nutritional, infection prevention, access to skilled childbirth attendants and health knowledge/behaviour of women. These interventions were implemented using nine strategies: mHealth (defined as the use of mobile and wireless technologies to support the achievement of health objectives), women’s groups, community midwifery, home visits, mass media sensitisation, traditional birth attendant and community volunteer training, community mobilisation and transport vouchers. The completeness of reporting using the TIDier checklist varied across studies with a very low proportion of the included studies reporting the intervention intensity, dosing, tailoring and modification. The quality of the included studies were graded as poor (n = 6), fair (n = 14) and good (n = 18). Though interventions were acceptable, only 4 (out of 7) studies explored women’s perceptions, mostly focusing on perceived intervention effects and how they felt, omitting key constructs like ethicality, opportunity cost and burden of participation. Interpretation: Different community-based interventions have been tried and evaluated for stillbirth prevention in SSA. The reproducibility and implementation scale-up of these interventions may be limited by incomplete intervention descriptions in the published literature. To strengthen impact, it is crucial to holistically explore the acceptability of these interventions among women and their families. Funding: Clarendon/Balliol/NDPH DPhil scholarship for UGA. MN is funded by a Medical Research Council Transition Support Award (MR/W029294/1).

Summary: Background: Facility-based stillbirth review provides opportunities to estimate incidence, evaluate causes and risk factors for stillbirths, and identify any issues related to the quality of pregnancy and childbirth care which require improvement. Our aim was to systematically review all types and methods of facility-based stillbirth review processes used in different countries across the world, to examine how stillbirth reviews in facility settings are being conducted worldwide and to identify the outcomes of implementing the reviews. Moreover, to identify facilitators and barriers influencing the implementation of the identified facility-based stillbirth reviews processes by conducting subgroup analyses. Methods: A systematic review of published literature was conducted by searching MEDLINE (OvidSP) [1946-present], EMBASE (OvidSP) [1974-present], WHO Global Index Medicus (globalindexmedicus.net), Global Health (OvidSP) [1973–2022 Week 8] and CINAHL (EBSCOHost) [1982-present] from their inception until 11 January, 2023. For unpublished or grey literature, the WHO databases, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global were searched, as well as hand searching the reference lists of included studies. MESH terms encompassing “∗Clinical Audit”, “∗Perinatal Mortality”, “Pregnancy Complications”, and “Stillbirth” were used with Boolean operators. Studies that used a facility-based review process or any approach to evaluate care prior to stillbirth, and explained the methods used were included. Reviews and editorials were excluded. Three authors (YYB, UGA, and DBT) independently screened and extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using an adapted JBI's Checklist for Case Series. A logic model was used to inform the narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022304239. Findings: A total of 68 studies from 17 high-income (HICs) and 22 low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) met the inclusion criteria from a total of 7258 identified records. These were stillbirth reviews conducted at different levels: district, state, national, and international. Three types were identified: audit, review, and confidential enquiry, but not all desired components were included in most processes, which led to a mismatch between the description of the type and the actual method used. Routine data from hospital records was the most common data source for identifying stillbirths, and case assessment was based on stillbirth definition in 48 out of 68 studies. Hospital notes were the most common source of information about care received and causes/risk factors for stillbirth. Short-term and medium-term outcomes were reported in 14 studies, but impact of the review process on reducing stillbirth, which is more difficult to establish, was not reported in any study. Facilitators and barriers in implementing a successful stillbirth review process identified from 14 studies focused on three main themes: resources, expertise, and commitment. Interpretation: This systematic review's findings identified that there is a need for clear guidelines on how to measure the impact of implementation of changes based on outputs of stillbirth reviews and methods to enable effective dissemination of learning points in the future and promoting them through training platforms. In addition, there is a need to develop and adopt a universal definition of stillbirth to facilitate meaningful comparison of stillbirth rates between regions. The key limitation of this review is that while using a logic model for narrative synthesis was deemed most appropriate for this study, sequence of implementing a stillbirth review in the real world is not linear, and assumptions are often not met. Therefore, the logic model proposed in this study should be interpreted with flexibility when designing a stillbirth review process. The generated learnings from the stillbirth review processes inform the action plans and allow facilities to consider where the changes should happen to improve the quality of care in the facilities, enabling positive short-term and medium-term outcomes. Funding: Kellogg College, University of Oxford, Clarendon Fund, University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford and Medical Research Council (MRC).

Plain English summary Involving families in health research gives children the opportunity to have more control over their healthcare and can help researchers/clinicians to better understand a child’s needs. However, involving children in research is still an uncommon practice despite international pressures to include children in decision making. This paper reflects on the development of the Management and Intervention for Asthma study, which worked with communities to develop a framework for planning health interventions for South Asian children with asthma. There are currently 1 million children in the UK being treated for asthma, making it one of the most common chronic childhood illnesses. Symptoms of asthma are overlooked in children from South Asian communities in the UK, leading to worse health outcomes and more visits to the emergency department. We worked with the community to identify the key concerns and priorities they had, and then jointly designed the framework around their needs. We identified several key things to consider when co-developing interventions with children: Power dynamics Consent/Assent Parental involvement Time and location Engagement Diversity of needs Ethnicity and Culture Adapting our research and engagement methods to suit children’s needs enabled us to involve them in the study in a way that allowed us to effectively explore their views, priorities, and experiences of their illness. However, researchers need to make sure that they have the expertise, time, and resources to be able to support the needs of child participants.