Search

Background: World Health Organization (WHO) developed the Safe Childbirth Checklist as an intervention to improve care and outcomes in maternal and newborn health. In the primary BetterBirth traditional trial analysis, the intervention did not significantly improve . However, a novel subgroup-based analysis could identify subpopulations that benefited from the intervention. Methods: In this work, we employ data-driven analysis methods to identify differentiated subgroups with unexpected characteristics compared to the average population. Specifically, we aim to identify: 1) vulnerable subgroups and 2) subpopulation in the intervention arm with significantly reduced outcome. The method utilizes the existing subset scanning literature that searches over a combination of features to identify the differentiated groups. Findings: We found that low birthweight (

Frequent coaching was associated with increased adherence to evidence-based essential birth practices among birth attendants but not with improved maternal and perinatal health outcomes in the BetterBirth Trial, which assessed the impact of a complex intervention to implement the World Health Organization's Safe Childbirth Checklist. To promote sustainable behavior change, future coaching-based interventions may need to explore cost-effective, feasible mechanisms for providing more frequent coaching delivered with high coverage among health care workers for longer durations., Background: Coaching can improve the quality of care in primary-level birth facilities and promote birth attendant adherence to essential birth practices (EBPs) that reduce maternal and perinatal mortality. The intensity of coaching needed to promote and sustain behavior change is unknown. We investigated the relationship between coaching intensity, EBP adherence, and maternal and perinatal health outcomes using data from the BetterBirth Trial, which assessed the impact of a complex, coaching-based implementation of the World Health Organization's Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh, India. Methods: For each birth, we defined multiple coaching intensity metrics, including coaching frequency (coaching visits per month), cumulative coaching (total coaching visits accrued during the intervention), and scheduling adherence (coaching delivered as scheduled). We considered coaching delivered at both facility and birth attendant levels. We assessed the association between coaching intensity and birth attendant adherence to 18 EBPs and with maternal and perinatal health outcomes using regression models. Results: Coaching frequency was associated with modestly increased EBP adherence. Delivering 6 coaching visits per month to facilities was associated with adherence to 1.3 additional EBPs (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.6, 1.9). High-frequency coaching delivered with high coverage among birth attendants was associated with greater improvements: providing 70% of birth attendants at a facility with at least 1 visit per month was associated with adherence to 2.0 additional EBPs (95% CI=1.0, 2.9). Neither cumulative coaching nor scheduling adherence was associated with EBP adherence. Coaching was generally not associated with health outcomes, possibly due to the small magnitude of association between coaching and EBP adherence. Conclusions: Frequent coaching may promote behavior change, especially if delivered with high coverage among birth attendants. However, the effects of coaching were modest and did not persist over time, suggesting that future coaching-based interventions should explore providing frequent coaching for longer periods.

OBJECTIVE To understand the prevalence of intrapartum oxytocin use, assess associated perinatal and maternal outcomes, and evaluate the impact of a WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist intervention on oxytocin use at primary-level facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India. DESIGN Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING Thirty Primary and Community public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India from 2014 to 2017. POPULATION Women admitted to a study facility for childbirth at baseline, 2, 6 or 12 months after intervention initiation. METHODS The BetterBirth intervention aimed to increase adherence to the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist. We used Rao-Scott Chi-square tests to compare (1) timing of oxytocin use between study arms and (2) perinatal mortality and resuscitation of infants whose mothers received intrapartum oxytocin versus who did not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Intrapartum and postpartum oxytocin administration, perinatal mortality, use of neonatal bag and mask. RESULTS We observed 5484 deliveries. At baseline, intrapartum oxytocin was administered to 78.2% of women. Two months after intervention initiation, intrapartum oxytocin (I) was administered to 32.1% of women compared with 70.6% in the control (C) (P

Summary: Background: A coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh, India, improved adherence to evidence-based practices, but did not reduce perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, or maternal mortality. We examined facility-level correlates of the outcomes, which varied widely across the 120 study facilities. Methods: We did a post-hoc analysis of the coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist in Uttar Pradesh. We used multivariable modelling to identify correlations between 30 facility-level characteristics and each health outcome (perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity, or maternal mortality). To identify contexts in which the intervention might have had an effect, we then ran the models on data restricted to the period of intensive coaching and among patients not referred out of the facilities. Findings: In the multivariable context, perinatal mortality was associated with only 3 of the 30 variables: female literacy at the district level, geographical location, and previous neonatal mortality. Maternal morbidity was only associated with geographical location. No facility-level predictors were associated with maternal mortality. Among facilities in the lowest tertile of birth volume (

Approximately 15% of infants worldwide are born with low birthweight (

BackgroundEvidence-based practices that reduce childbirth-related morbidity and mortality are core processes to quality of care. In the BetterBirth trial, a matched-pair, cluster-randomised controlled trial of a coaching-based implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) in Uttar Pradesh, India, we observed a significant increase in adherence to practices, but no reduction in perinatal mortality.MethodsWithin the BetterBirth trial, we observed birth attendants in a subset of study sites providing care to labouring women to assess the adherence to individual and groups of practices. We observed care from admission to the facility until 1 hour post partum. We followed observed women/newborns for 7-day perinatal health outcomes. Using this observational data, we conducted a post-hoc, exploratory analysis to understand the relationship of birth attendants’ practice adherence to perinatal mortality.FindingsAcross 30 primary health facilities, we observed 3274 deliveries and obtained 7-day health outcomes. Adherence to individual practices, containing supply preparation and direct provider care, varied widely (0·51 to 99·78%). We recorded 166 perinatal deaths (50·71 per 1000 births), including 56 (17·1 per 1000) stillbirths. Each additional practice performed was significantly associated with reduced odds of perinatal (OR: 0·82, 95% CI: 0·72, 0·93) and early neonatal mortality (OR: 0·78, 95% CI: 0·71, 0·85). Each additional practice as part of direct provider care was associated strongly with reduced odds of perinatal (OR: 0·73, 95% CI: 0·62, 0·86) and early neonatal mortality (OR: 0·67, 95% CI: 0·56, 0·80). No individual practice or single supply preparation was associated with perinatal mortality.InterpretationAdherence to practices on the WHO SCC is associated with reduced mortality, indicating that adherence is a valid indicator of higher quality of care. However, the causal relationships between practices and outcomes are complex.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Trial registration detailsClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1131-5647.

IntroductionEnding preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 will not be possible without evidence-based strategies addressing the health and care of low birthweight (LBW, Methods and analysisLIFE is a formative, multisite, observational cohort study involving 12 study facilities in India, Malawi and Tanzania, and using a convergent parallel, mixed-methods design. We assess feeding patterns, growth indicators, morbidity, mortality, child development and health system inputs that facilitate or hinder care and survival of LBW infants.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by 11 ethics committees in India, Malawi, Tanzania and the USA. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations targeting the global and local research, clinical, programme implementation and policy communities.Trial registration numbersNCT04002908and CTRI/2019/02/017475.

The prevalence of facility-based childbirth in low-resource settings has increased dramatically during the past two decades, yet gaps in the quality of care persist and mortality remains high. The World Health Organization (WHO) Safe Childbirth Checklist, a quality-improvement tool, promotes systematic adherence to practices that have been associated with improved childbirth outcomes.We conducted a matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled trial in 60 pairs of facilities across 24 districts of Uttar Pradesh, India, testing the effect of the BetterBirth program, an 8-month coaching-based implementation of the Safe Childbirth Checklist, on a composite outcome of perinatal death, maternal death, or maternal severe complications within 7 days after delivery. Outcomes - assessed 8 to 42 days after delivery - were compared between the intervention group and the control group with adjustment for clustering and matching. We also compared birth attendants' adherence to 18 essential birth practices in 15 matched pairs of facilities at 2 and 12 months after the initiation of the intervention.Of 161,107 eligible women, we enrolled 157,689 (97.9%) and determined 7-day outcomes for 157,145 (99.7%) mother-newborn dyads. Among 4888 observed births, birth attendants' mean practice adherence was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (72.8% vs. 41.7% at 2 months; 61.7% vs. 43.9% at 12 months; P0.001 for both comparisons). However, there was no significant difference between the trial groups either in the composite primary outcome (15.1% in the intervention group and 15.3% in the control group; relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.18; P=0.90) or in secondary maternal or perinatal adverse outcomes.Birth attendants' adherence to essential birth practices was higher in facilities that used the coaching-based WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program than in those that did not, but maternal and perinatal mortality and maternal morbidity did not differ significantly between the two groups. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Clinical Trials number, NCT02148952 .).

Background Adherence to evidence-based essential birth practices is critical for improving health outcomes for mothers and newborns. The WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist (SCC) incorporates these practices, which occur during 4 critical pause points: on admission, before pushing (or cesarean delivery), soon after birth, and before discharge. A peer-coaching strategy to support consistent use of the SCC may be an effective approach to increase birth attendants' adherence to these practices. Methods We assessed data from 60 public health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India, that received an 8-month staggered coaching intervention from December 2014 to September 2016 as part of the BetterBirth Trial, which is studying effectiveness of an SCC-centered intervention on maternal and neonatal harm. Nurse coaches recorded birth attendants' adherence to 39 essential birth practices. Practice adherence was calculated for each intervention month. After 2 months of coaching, a subsample of 15 facilities was selected for independent observation when the coach was not present. We compared adherence to the 18 practices recorded by both coaches and independent observers. Results Coaches observed birth attendants' behavior during 5,971 deliveries. By the final month of the intervention, 35 of 39 essential birth practices had achieved >90% adherence in the presence of a coach, compared with only 7 of 39 practices during the first month. Key behaviors with the greatest improvement included explanation of danger signs, temperature measurement, assessment of fetal heart sounds, initiation of skin-to-skin contact, and breastfeeding. Without a coach present, birth attendants' average adherence to practices and checklist use was 24 percentage points lower than when a coach was present (range: -1% to 62%). Conclusion Implementation of the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist with coaching improved uptake of and adherence to essential birth practices. Coordination and communication among facility staff, as well as behaviors with an immediate, tangible benefit, showed the greatest improvement. Difficult-to-perform behaviors and those with delayed or theoretical benefits were less likely to be sustained without a coach present. Coaching may be an important component in implementing the Safe Childbirth Checklist at scale.Note: At the time of publication of this article, the results of evaluation of the impact of the BetterBirth intervention were pending publication in another journal. After the impact findings have been published, we will update this article on the effect of the intervention on birth practices with a reference to the impact findings.

Background The BetterBirth trial tested the effect of a peer coaching program around the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist for birth attendants in primary-level facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India on a composite measure of perinatal and maternal mortality and maternal morbidity. This study aimed to examine the adherence to essential birth practices between two different cadres of birth attendants—nurses and auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs)—during and after a peer coaching intervention for the WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist. Methods This is a secondary analysis of birth attendant characteristics, coaching visits, and behavior uptake during the BetterBirth trial through birth attendant surveys, coach observations, and independent observations. Descriptive statistics were calculated overall, and by staffing cadre (staff nurses and ANMs) for demographic characteristics. Logistic regression using the Pearson overdispersion correction (to account for clustering by site) was used to assess differences between staff nurses and ANMs in the intervention group during regular coaching (2-month time point) and 4 months after the coaching program ended (12-month time point). Results Of the 570 birth attendants who responded to the survey in intervention and control arms, 474 were staff nurses (83.2%) and 96 were ANMs (16.8%). In the intervention arm, more staff nurses (240/260, 92.3%) received coaching at all pause points compared to ANMs (40/53, 75.5%). At baseline, adherence to practices was similar between ANMs and staff nurses (~ 30%). Overall percent adherence to essential birth practices among ANMs and nurses was highest at 2 months after intervention initiation, when frequent coaching visits occurred (68.1% and 64.1%, respectively, p = 0.76). Practice adherence tapered to 49.2% among ANMs and 56.1% among staff nurses at 12 months, which was 4 months after coaching had ended (p = 0.68). Conclusions Overall, ANMs and nurses responded similarly to the coaching intervention with the greatest increase in percent adherence to essential birth practices after 2 months of coaching and subsequent decrease in adherence 4 months after coaching ended. While coaching is an effective strategy to support some aspects of birth attendant competency, the structure, content, and frequency of coaching may need to be customized according to the birth attendant training and competency. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT2148952; Universal Trial Number: U1111–1131-5647.

Background: Research demonstrates that coaching is an effective method for promoting behavior change, yet little is known about which attributes of a coach make them more or less effective. This post hoc, sub-analysis of the BetterBirth trial used observational data to explore whether specific coaches’ and team leaders' characteristics were associated with improved adherence to essential birth practices listed on the World Health Organization Safe Childbirth Checklist. Methods: A descriptive analysis was conducted on the coach characteristics from the 50 BetterBirth coaches and team leaders. Data on adherence to essential birth practices by birth attendants who received coaching were collected by independent observers. Bivariate linear regression models were constructed, accounting for clustering by site, to examine the association between coach characteristics and attendants’ adherence to practices. Results: All of the coaches were female and the majority were nurses. Team leaders were comprised of both males and females; half had clinical backgrounds. There was no association between coaches’ or team leaders’ characteristics, namely gender, type of degree, or years of clinical training, and attendants’ adherence to essential birth practices. However, a significant inverse relationship was detected between the coach or team leader’s age and years of experience and the birth attendants’ adherence to the checklist. Conclusion: Younger, less experienced coaches were more successful in promoting essential birth practices adherence in this population. More data is needed to fully understand the relationship between coaches and birth attendants.

Background There are few published standards or methodological guidelines for integrating Data Quality Assurance (DQA) protocols into large-scale health systems research trials, especially in resource-limited settings. The BetterBirth Trial is a matched-pair, cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the BetterBirth Program, which seeks to improve quality of facility-based deliveries and reduce 7-day maternal and neonatal mortality and maternal morbidity in Uttar Pradesh, India. In the trial, over 6300 deliveries were observed and over 153,000 mother-baby pairs across 120 study sites were followed to assess health outcomes. We designed and implemented a robust and integrated DQA system to sustain high-quality data throughout the trial. Methods We designed the Data Quality Monitoring and Improvement System (DQMIS) to reinforce six dimensions of data quality: accuracy, reliability, timeliness, completeness, precision, and integrity. The DQMIS was comprised of five functional components: 1) a monitoring and evaluation team to support the system; 2) a DQA protocol, including data collection audits and targets, rapid data feedback, and supportive supervision; 3) training; 4) standard operating procedures for data collection; and 5) an electronic data collection and reporting system. Routine audits by supervisors included double data entry, simultaneous delivery observations, and review of recorded calls to patients. Data feedback reports identified errors automatically, facilitating supportive supervision through a continuous quality improvement model. Results The five functional components of the DQMIS successfully reinforced data reliability, timeliness, completeness, precision, and integrity. The DQMIS also resulted in 98.33% accuracy across all data collection activities in the trial. All data collection activities demonstrated improvement in accuracy throughout implementation. Data collectors demonstrated a statistically significant (p = 0.0004) increase in accuracy throughout consecutive audits. The DQMIS was successful, despite an increase from 20 to 130 data collectors. Conclusions In the absence of widely disseminated data quality methods and standards for large RCT interventions in limited-resource settings, we developed an integrated DQA system, combining auditing, rapid data feedback, and supportive supervision, which ensured high-quality data and could serve as a model for future health systems research trials. Future efforts should focus on standardization of DQA processes for health systems research. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02148952 . Registered on 13 February 2014.