Search

The delivery of nutrition‐related interventions and counselling during antenatal care is critical for a healthy pregnancy for both mother and child. However, the accuracy of maternal reports of many of these services during household surveys has not yet been examined. Our objectives were to assess the validity of the maternal reports of 10 antenatal nutrition interventions, including counselling, and examine associates between maternal characteristics and accuracy. Maternal report of services received collected during a post‐partum survey was compared to the gold standard, the direct observation of all women's antenatal care visits. Individual‐level validity was assessed by calculating indicator sensitivity, specificity and area under the operating curve (AUC). The inflation factor (IF) measured population‐level bias. For five indicators, the high true coverage limited our ability to assess the validity of the maternal reports. There were no indicators that had both high individual‐level validity (AUC > 0.70) and low population bias (0.75 < IF < 1.25). Indicators with greater true coverage estimates had higher sensitivity and lower specificity estimates compared to those indicators with lower true coverage. There were no maternal characteristics associated with the accuracy of the report. Maternal report of antenatal nutrition‐related interventions and counselling during household surveys was found to have variable validity across indicators. Additional research in settings with varying coverage levels should be considered to best inform antenatal care coverage measurement in household surveys. Key Messages: The coverage of nutrition‐related interventions and counselling was high (>89%) for the majority of indicators.Maternal reports resulted in higher coverage estimates than what was observed for all but one indicator.No indicator assessed had high individual level validity (AUC > 0.70) and low population bias (0.75 < IF < 1.25).The greater the indicator's true coverage estimate, the greater the sensitivity and lower the specificity values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe maternal morbidity (SMM) occurs in 1–2% of pregnancies. Despite the knowledge that a SMM event can contribute to poor fetal/neonatal outcomes, little is known about the preventability of these adverse outcomes. Aims: To examine adverse fetal/neonatal outcomes associated with SMM to determine if these outcomes were potentially preventable. Materials and Methods: A New Zealand national retrospective cohort study examining cases of SMM with an adverse fetal/neonatal outcome. Maternity and initial neonatal care were explored by multidisciplinary panels utilising a preventability tool to assess whether the fetal/neonatal harm was potentially preventable. Adverse fetal/neonatal outcomes were defined as fetal or early neonatal death, Apgar score <7 at five minutes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit or special care baby unit and neonatal encephalopathy. Results: Of 85 cases reviewed, adverse fetal/neonatal outcome was deemed potentially preventable in 55.3% of cases (n = 47/85). Preventability was related to maternal antenatal/peripartum care (in utero) in 39% (n = 33/85), to initial neonatal care (ex utero) in 36% (n = 29/80), and to both maternal and neonatal care in 20% (16/80) of cases. Main contributors to potential preventability were factors related to healthcare providers, particularly lack of recognition of high risk, delayed or failure to diagnose, and delayed or inappropriate treatment. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary panels found that over half of adverse fetal/neonatal harm associated with SMM was potentially preventable. The novel approach of examining both maternal and neonatal care identifies opportunities to improve fetal/neonatal outcomes associated with SMM at multiple points on the perinatal continuum of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pregnant women have been identified as high users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, no research to date has provided a detailed analysis of the prevalence and determinants of CAM consumption amongst pregnant women. Aim To examine the prevalence and determinants of CAM use by pregnant women, utilising a national representative sample. Methods The study sample was obtained via the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. This paper is based on a sub-study of 1,835 pregnant women, administered in 2010. The women answered questions about CAM use, demographics, pregnancy-related health concerns and health service utilisation. Results Complementary and alternative medicine use was found to be high with 48.1% ( n = 623) of pregnant women consulting a CAM practitioner and 52.0% ( n = 842) of women using CAM products (excluding vitamins and minerals) during pregnancy. CAM practitioner visits were more likely for selected pregnancy-related health concerns, namely back pain or back ache, neck pain and labour preparation. Women were less likely to consult a CAM practitioner if they suffered with headaches/migraines. Employment was also found to be predictive of pregnant women's visits to a CAM practitioner. Significant health history and demographic predictors of CAM product use were tiredness and fatigue, embarking on preparation for labour and having a university education. Conclusion Most pregnant women are utilising CAM products and/or services as part of their maternity care and obstetricians, general practitioners and midwives need to enquire with women in their care about possible CAM use to help promote safe, effective coordinated maternity care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]