Search

Background: Stillbirth has a profound impact on women, families, and healthcare workers. The burden is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need for respectful and supportive care for women, partners, and families after bereavement.Objective: To perform a qualitative meta-summary of parents' and healthcare professionals' experiences of care after stillbirth in LMICs.Search Strategy: Search terms were formulated by identifying all synonyms, thesaurus terms, and variations for stillbirth. Databases searched were AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, BNI, CINAHL.Selection Criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies that addressed parents' or healthcare professionals' experience of care after stillbirth in LMICs.Data Collection and Analysis: Studies were screened, and data extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed using the Sandelowski meta-summary technique that calculates frequency and intensity effect sizes (FES/IES).Main Results: In all, 118 full texts were screened, and 34 studies from 17 countries were included. FES range was 15-68%. Most studies had IES 1.5-4.5. Women experience a broad range of manifestations of grief following stillbirth, which may not be recognised by healthcare workers or in their communities. Lack of recognition exacerbates negative experiences of stigmatisation, blame, devaluation, and loss of social status. Adequately developed health systems, with trained and supported staff, are best equipped to provide the support and information that women want after stillbirth.Conclusions: Basic interventions could have an immediate impact on the experiences of women and their families after stillbirth. Examples include public education to reduce stigma, promoting the respectful maternity care agenda, and investigating stillbirth appropriately.Tweetable Abstract: Reducing stigma, promoting respectful care and investigating stillbirth have a positive impact after stillbirth for women and families in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD-PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention.Objectives: To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD-PM.Search Strategy: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016.Selection Criteria: Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts.Data Collection and Analysis: Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD-PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC).Main Results: Eighty-five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD-PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD-PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes.Conclusions: There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well-resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings.Funding: HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC-CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC-CDF (APP1123611).Tweetable Abstract: Urgent need to improve data on causes of stillbirths across all settings to meet global targets.Plain Language Summary: Background and methods Nearly three million babies are stillborn every year. These deaths have deep and long-lasting effects on parents, healthcare providers, and the society. One of the major challenges to preventing stillbirths is the lack of information about why they happen. In this study, we collected reports on the causes of stillbirth from high-, middle-, and low-income countries to: (1) Understand the causes of stillbirth, and (2) Understand how to improve reporting of stillbirths. Findings We found 85 reports from 50 different countries. The information available from the reports was inconsistent and often of poor quality, so it was hard to get a clear picture about what are the causes of stillbirth across the world. Many different definitions of stillbirth were used. There was also wide variation in what investigations of the mother and baby were undertaken to identify the cause of stillbirth. Stillbirths in all income settings (low-, middle-, and high-income countries) were most frequently reported as Unexplained, Other, and Haemorrhage (bleeding). Unexplained and Other are not helpful in understanding why a baby was stillborn. In low-income countries, stillbirths were often attributed to Infection and Complications during labour and birth. In middle- and high-income countries, stillbirths were often reported as Placental complications. Limitations We may have missed some reports as searches were carried out in English only. The available reports were of poor quality. Implications Many countries, particularly those where the majority of stillbirths occur, do not report any information about these deaths. Where there are reports, the quality is often poor. It is important to improve the investigation and reporting of stillbirth using a standardised system so that policy makers and healthcare workers can develop effective stillbirth prevention programs. All stillbirths should be investigated and reported in line with the World Health Organization standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss prevalence and prevention of stillbirths in response to the 2017 Every Woman Every Child (EWEC) progress report on the global strategy developed for women's and children's health. Topics explored include the occurrence of stillbirths in low- and middle-income nations, the integration of health interventions into maternal and newborn care practices, and the need to acknowledge psychological and psychosocial impact of stillbirths.

Reducing neonatal mortality remains a challenge with an estimated 3.0 million neonatal deaths in 2011, three-quarters of these in sub- Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. The leading causes of neonatal death globally are complications of preterm birth, intrapartum-related causes and infections. While post-neonatal, under-5 deaths fell by 47% between 1990 and 2011, neonatal deaths only fell by 32% and they now account for 43% of all under-5 child deaths. This article reviews the progress in reducing neonatal deaths in high-burden countries and presents an overview of known effective interventions to reduce neonatal mortality and the challenges faced in implementing these in high-burden settings. Effective action is possible to reduce neonatal mortality, but innovative approaches to implementation will be required if these preventable deaths are to be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ninety-eight percent of neonatal deaths worldwide occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet there is little bereavement care guidance available for these settings., Objectives: To explore parents', families' and healthcare professionals' experiences of care after neonatal death in healthcare facilities in LMICs., Search Strategy and Selection Criteria: Four databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature, meeting the inclusion criteria of qualitative studies exploring the experiences of people who provided or received bereavement care following neonatal death in a LMIC healthcare setting., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were collected by two independent reviewers, collated through line-by-line coding and then reciprocal and refutational translation, and analysed through Noblit and Hare's seven-step meta-ethnography approach to create first-, second- and third-order themes., Main Results: Seven first-order themes extracted from the literature included emotional responses, social relationships, staff and systems, religion, connecting with the baby, coping strategies and economic concerns. From these data, three third-order themes arose: The individual, the healthcare setting and the community/context., Conclusions: Overarching themes in bereavement care shape grief responses and are often similar across geographical locations. Analysing these similarities allows a deeper understanding of the important elements of bereavement care and may be helpful to inform the creation of high-quality, bereavement care guidelines suitable for use in LMIC settings., (© 2024 The Author(s). BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To compare stillbirth rates and risks for small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and appropriate for gestational age (AGA) pregnancies at 24-44 completed weeks of gestation using a birth-based and fetuses-at-risk approachs., Design: Population-based, multi-country study., Setting: National data systems in 15 high- and middle-income countries., Population: Live births and stillbirths., Methods: A total of 151 country-years of data, including 126 543 070 births across 15 countries from 2000 to 2020, were compiled. Births were categorised into SGA, AGA and LGA using INTERGROWTH-21st standards. Gestation-specific stillbirth rates, with total births as the denominator, and gestation-specific stillbirth risks, with fetuses still in utero as the denominator, were calculated from 24 to 44 weeks of gestation., Main Outcome Measures: Gestation-specific stillbirth rates and risks according to size at birth., Results: The overall stillbirth rate was 4.22 per 1000 total births (95% CI 4.22-4.23) across all gestations. Applying the birth-based approach, the stillbirth rates were highest at 24 weeks of gestation, with 621.6 per 1000 total births (95% CI 620.9-622.2) for SGA pregnancies, 298.4 per 1000 total births (95% CI 298.1-298.7) for AGA pregnancies and 338.5 per 1000 total births (95% CI 337.9-339.0) for LGA pregnancies. Applying the fetuses-at-risk approach, the gestation-specific stillbirth risk was highest for SGA pregnancies (1.3-1.4 per 1000 fetuses at risk) prior to 29 weeks of gestation. The risk remained stable between 30 and 34 weeks of gestation, and then increased gradually from 35 weeks of gestation to the highest rate of 8.4 per 1000 fetuses at risk (95% CI 8.3-8.4) at ≥42 weeks of gestation. The stillbirth risk ratio (RR) was consistently high for SGA compared with AGA pregnancies, with the highest RR observed at ≥42 weeks of gestation (RR 9.2, 95% CI 15.2-13.2), and with the lowest RR observed at 24 weeks of gestation (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.9-4.3). The stillbirth RR was also consistently high for SGA compared with AGA pregnancies across all countries, with national variability ranging from RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.43-0.97) in Mexico to RR 8.6 (95% CI 8.1-9.1) in Uruguay. No increased risk for LGA pregnancies was observed., Conclusions: Small for gestational age (SGA) was strongly associated with stillbirth risk in this study based on high-quality data from high- and middle-income countries. The highest RRs were seen in preterm gestations, with two-thirds of the stillbirths born as preterm births. To advance our understanding of stillbirth, further analyses should be conducted using high-quality data sets from low-income settings, particularly those with relatively high rates of SGA., (© 2024 The Author(s). BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Low birthweight (<2500 g) and preterm birth (<37 weeks) are markers of newborn vulnerability. To facilitate informed decisions about investments in prevention and care, it is imperative to enhance data quality and use. Hence, the objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of data concerning low birthweight and preterm births within routine administrative data sources., Design: Systematic data quality assessment by adopting the WHO Data Quality Framework., Setting: National routine data system from UN member states., Population: Livebirths., Methods: National routine administrative data on low birthweight and preterm births for 195 countries from 2000 to 2020 were systematically collated, totalling >700 million live births. The WHO data quality framework was adapted to undertake standardised data quality assessments., Main Outcome Measures: Availability, reporting quality, internal and external consistency of low birthweight and preterm data., Results: Most United States Member States (64%: 124/195) had national data on low birthweight and (40%: 82/195) had data on preterm birth. Routine data system reporting was highest in North America, Australasia and Europe, where more than 95% live births had data on low birthweight and over 75% had data preterm births. In contrast, data reporting was lowest in sub-Saharan Africa (13% for low birthweight, 8% for preterm births) and Southern Asia (16% for low birthweight, 5% for preterm births). Most countries collect individual-level data; but, aggregate data reporting from hospital-based systems remain common in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. While data quality was generally high in North America, Australasia and Europe, gaps remain in the availability of gestational age metadata. Consistency between low birthweight and preterm rates were poor in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa regions across time. There was high external consistency between low birthweight rates obtained from routine administrative data compared with low birthweight rates obtained from survey data for countries with high data quality., Conclusions: Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia countries have data gaps but also opportunities for rapid progress. Most births occure in facilities, electronic health information systems already include low birthweight, and adding accurate gestational age including with ultrasound assessment is becoming increasingly attainable. Moving toward the collection of individual level data would enable monitoring of quality of care and longer-term outcomes. This is crucial for every child and family and essential for measuring progress towards relevant sustainable development goals. The assessment will inform countries' actions for data quality improvement at national level and use of data for impact., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries have high stillbirth rates compared with high-income countries, yet research on risk factors for stillbirth in SSA remain scant., Objectives: To identify the modifiable risk factors of stillbirths in SSA and investigate their strength of association using a systematic review., Search Strategy: CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Global Health and MEDLINE databases were searched for literature., Selection Criteria: Observational population- and facility-level studies exploring stillbirth risk factors, published in 2013-2019 were included., Data Collection and Analysis: A narrative synthesis of data was undertaken and the potential risk factors were classified into subgroups., Main Results: Thirty-seven studies were included, encompassing 20 264 stillbirths. The risk factors were categorised as: maternal antepartum factors (0-4 antenatal care visits, multiple gestations, hypertension, birth interval of >3 years, history of perinatal death); socio-economic factors (maternal lower wealth index and basic education, advanced maternal age, grand multiparity of ≥5); intrapartum factors (direct obstetric complication); fetal factors (low birthweight and gestational age of <37 weeks) and health systems factors (poor quality of antenatal care, emergency referrals, ill-equipped facility). The proportion of unexplained stillbirths remained very high. No association was found between stillbirths and body mass index, diabetes, distance from the facility or HIV., Conclusions: The overall quality of evidence was low, as many studies were facility based and did not adjust for confounding factors. This review identified preventable risk factors for stillbirth. Focused programmatic strategies to improve antenatal care, emergency obstetric care, maternal perinatal education, referral and outreach systems, and birth attendant training should be developed. More population-based, high-quality research is needed., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To examine the contribution of preterm birth and size-for-gestational age in stillbirths using six 'newborn types'., Design: Population-based multi-country analyses., Setting: Births collected through routine data systems in 13 countries., Sample: 125 419 255 total births from 22 +0 to 44 +6 weeks' gestation identified from 2000 to 2020., Methods: We included 635 107 stillbirths from 22 +0  weeks' gestation from 13 countries. We classified all births, including stillbirths, into six 'newborn types' based on gestational age information (preterm, PT, <37 +0  weeks versus term, T, ≥37 +0  weeks) and size-for-gestational age defined as small (SGA, <10th centile), appropriate (AGA, 10th-90th centiles) or large (LGA, >90th centile) for gestational age, according to the international newborn size for gestational age and sex INTERGROWTH-21st standards., Main Outcome Measures: Distribution of stillbirths, stillbirth rates and rate ratios according to six newborn types., Results: 635 107 (0.5%) of the 125 419 255 total births resulted in stillbirth after 22 +0  weeks. Most stillbirths (74.3%) were preterm. Around 21.2% were SGA types (PT + SGA [16.2%], PT + AGA [48.3%], T + SGA [5.0%]) and 14.1% were LGA types (PT + LGA [9.9%], T + LGA [4.2%]). The median rate ratio (RR) for stillbirth was highest in PT + SGA babies (RR 81.1, interquartile range [IQR], 68.8-118.8) followed by PT + AGA (RR 25.0, IQR, 20.0-34.3), PT + LGA (RR 25.9, IQR, 13.8-28.7) and T + SGA (RR 5.6, IQR, 5.1-6.0) compared with T + AGA. Stillbirth rate ratios were similar for T + LGA versus T + AGA (RR 0.7, IQR, 0.7-1.1). At the population level, 25% of stillbirths were attributable to small-for-gestational-age., Conclusions: In these high-quality data from high/middle income countries, almost three-quarters of stillbirths were born preterm and a fifth small-for-gestational age, with the highest stillbirth rates associated with the coexistence of preterm and SGA. Further analyses are needed to better understand patterns of gestation-specific risk in these populations, as well as patterns in lower-income contexts, especially those with higher rates of intrapartum stillbirth and SGA., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: We aimed to compare the prevalence and neonatal mortality associated with large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomia among 115.6 million live births in 15 countries, between 2000 and 2020., Design: Population-based, multi-country study., Setting: National healthcare systems., Population: Liveborn infants., Methods: We used individual-level data identified for the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We calculated the prevalence and relative risk (RR) of neonatal mortality among live births born at term + LGA (>90th centile, and also >95th and >97th centiles when the data were available) versus term + appropriate for gestational age (AGA, 10th-90th centiles) and macrosomic (≥4000, ≥4500 and ≥5000 g, regardless of gestational age) versus 2500-3999 g. INTERGROWTH 21st served as the reference population., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence and neonatal mortality risks., Results: Large for gestational age was common (median prevalence 18.2%; interquartile range, IQR, 13.5%-22.0%), and overall was associated with a lower neonatal mortality risk compared with AGA (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). Around one in ten babies were ≥4000 g (median prevalence 9.6% (IQR 6.4%-13.3%), with 1.2% (IQR 0.7%-2.0%) ≥4500 g and with 0.2% (IQR 0.1%-0.2%) ≥5000 g). Overall, macrosomia of ≥4000 g was not associated with increased neonatal mortality risk (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.94); however, a higher risk was observed for birthweights of ≥4500 g (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.10-2.11) and ≥5000 g (RR 4.54, 95% CI 2.58-7.99), compared with birthweights of 2500-3999 g, with the highest risk observed in the first 7 days of life., Conclusions: In this population, birthweight of ≥4500 g was the most useful marker for early mortality risk in big babies and could be used to guide clinical management decisions., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To examine the prevalence of novel newborn types among 165 million live births in 23 countries from 2000 to 2021., Design: Population-based, multi-country analysis., Setting: National data systems in 23 middle- and high-income countries., Population: Liveborn infants., Methods: Country teams with high-quality data were invited to be part of the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We classified live births by six newborn types based on gestational age information (preterm <37 weeks versus term ≥37 weeks) and size for gestational age defined as small (SGA, <10th centile), appropriate (10th-90th centiles), or large (LGA, >90th centile) for gestational age, according to INTERGROWTH-21st standards. We considered small newborn types of any combination of preterm or SGA, and term + LGA was considered large. Time trends were analysed using 3-year moving averages for small and large types., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of six newborn types., Results: We analysed 165 017 419 live births and the median prevalence of small types was 11.7% - highest in Malaysia (26%) and Qatar (15.7%). Overall, 18.1% of newborns were large (term + LGA) and was highest in Estonia 28.8% and Denmark 25.9%. Time trends of small and large infants were relatively stable in most countries., Conclusions: The distribution of newborn types varies across the 23 middle- and high-income countries. Small newborn types were highest in west Asian countries and large types were highest in Europe. To better understand the global patterns of these novel newborn types, more information is needed, especially from low- and middle-income countries., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To compare neonatal mortality associated with six novel vulnerable newborn types in 125.5 million live births across 15 countries, 2000-2020., Design: Population-based, multi-country study., Setting: National data systems in 15 middle- and high-income countries., Methods: We used individual-level data sets identified for the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We examined the contribution to neonatal mortality of six newborn types combining gestational age (preterm [PT] versus term [T]) and size-for-gestational age (small [SGA], <10th centile, appropriate [AGA], 10th-90th centile or large [LGA], >90th centile) according to INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards. Newborn babies with PT or SGA were defined as small and T + LGA was considered as large. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and population attributable risks (PAR%) for the six newborn types., Main Outcome Measures: Mortality of six newborn types., Results: Of 125.5 million live births analysed, risk ratios were highest among PT + SGA (median 67.2, interquartile range [IQR] 45.6-73.9), PT + AGA (median 34.3, IQR 23.9-37.5) and PT + LGA (median 28.3, IQR 18.4-32.3). At the population level, PT + AGA was the greatest contributor to newborn mortality (median PAR% 53.7, IQR 44.5-54.9). Mortality risk was highest among newborns born before 28 weeks (median RR 279.5, IQR 234.2-388.5) compared with babies born between 37 and 42 completed weeks or with a birthweight less than 1000 g (median RR 282.8, IQR 194.7-342.8) compared with those between 2500 g and 4000 g as a reference group., Conclusion: Preterm newborn types were the most vulnerable, and associated with the highest mortality, particularly with co-existence of preterm and SGA. As PT + AGA is more prevalent, it is responsible for the greatest burden of neonatal deaths at population level., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To quantify parents' experiences of respectful care around stillbirth globally., Design: Multi-country, online, cross-sectional survey., Setting and Population: Self-identified bereaved parents (n = 3769) of stillborn babies from 44 high- and middle-income countries., Methods: Parents' perspectives of seven aspects of care quality, factors associated with respectful care and seven bereavement care practices were compared across geographical regions using descriptive statistics. Respectful care was compared between country-income groups using multivariable logistic regression., Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported experience of care around the time of stillbirth., Results: A quarter (25.4%) of 3769 respondents reported disrespectful care after stillbirth and 23.5% reported disrespectful care of their baby. Gestation less than 30 weeks and primiparity were associated with disrespect. Reported respectful care was lower in middle-income countries than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.29-0.42, p < 0.01). In many countries, aspects of care quality need improvement, such as ensuring families have enough time with providers. Participating respondents from Latin America and southern Europe reported lower satisfaction across all aspects of care quality compared with northern Europe. Unmet need for memory-making activities in middle-income countries was high., Conclusions: Many parents experience disrespectful care around stillbirth. Provider training and system-level support to address practical barriers are urgently needed. However, some practices (which are important to parents) can be readily implemented such as memory-making activities and referring to the baby by name., Tweetable Abstract: One in four experience disrespectful care after stillbirth. Parents want more time with providers and their babies, to talk and memory-make., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Stillbirth has a profound impact on women, families, and healthcare workers. The burden is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need for respectful and supportive care for women, partners, and families after bereavement., Objective: To perform a qualitative meta-summary of parents' and healthcare professionals' experiences of care after stillbirth in LMICs., Search Strategy: Search terms were formulated by identifying all synonyms, thesaurus terms, and variations for stillbirth. Databases searched were AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, BNI, CINAHL., Selection Criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies that addressed parents' or healthcare professionals' experience of care after stillbirth in LMICs., Data Collection and Analysis: Studies were screened, and data extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed using the Sandelowski meta-summary technique that calculates frequency and intensity effect sizes (FES/IES)., Main Results: In all, 118 full texts were screened, and 34 studies from 17 countries were included. FES range was 15-68%. Most studies had IES 1.5-4.5. Women experience a broad range of manifestations of grief following stillbirth, which may not be recognised by healthcare workers or in their communities. Lack of recognition exacerbates negative experiences of stigmatisation, blame, devaluation, and loss of social status. Adequately developed health systems, with trained and supported staff, are best equipped to provide the support and information that women want after stillbirth., Conclusions: Basic interventions could have an immediate impact on the experiences of women and their families after stillbirth. Examples include public education to reduce stigma, promoting the respectful maternity care agenda, and investigating stillbirth appropriately., Tweetable Abstract: Reducing stigma, promoting respectful care and investigating stillbirth have a positive impact after stillbirth for women and families in LMICs., (© 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD-PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention., Objectives: To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD-PM., Search Strategy: We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016., Selection Criteria: Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts., Data Collection and Analysis: Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD-PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC)., Main Results: Eighty-five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD-PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD-PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes., Conclusions: There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well-resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings., Funding: HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC-CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC-CDF (APP1123611)., Tweetable Abstract: Urgent need to improve data on causes of stillbirths across all settings to meet global targets., Plain Language Summary: Background and methods Nearly three million babies are stillborn every year. These deaths have deep and long-lasting effects on parents, healthcare providers, and the society. One of the major challenges to preventing stillbirths is the lack of information about why they happen. In this study, we collected reports on the causes of stillbirth from high-, middle-, and low-income countries to: (1) Understand the causes of stillbirth, and (2) Understand how to improve reporting of stillbirths. Findings We found 85 reports from 50 different countries. The information available from the reports was inconsistent and often of poor quality, so it was hard to get a clear picture about what are the causes of stillbirth across the world. Many different definitions of stillbirth were used. There was also wide variation in what investigations of the mother and baby were undertaken to identify the cause of stillbirth. Stillbirths in all income settings (low-, middle-, and high-income countries) were most frequently reported as Unexplained, Other, and Haemorrhage (bleeding). Unexplained and Other are not helpful in understanding why a baby was stillborn. In low-income countries, stillbirths were often attributed to Infection and Complications during labour and birth. In middle- and high-income countries, stillbirths were often reported as Placental complications. Limitations We may have missed some reports as searches were carried out in English only. The available reports were of poor quality. Implications Many countries, particularly those where the majority of stillbirths occur, do not report any information about these deaths. Where there are reports, the quality is often poor. It is important to improve the investigation and reporting of stillbirth using a standardised system so that policy makers and healthcare workers can develop effective stillbirth prevention programs. All stillbirths should be investigated and reported in line with the World Health Organization standards., (© 2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)