Search

Background: Respectful maternal and newborn care (RMNC) is an important component of high-quality care but progress is impeded by critical measurement gaps for women and newborns. The Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) study was an observational study with mixed methods assessing measurement validity for coverage and quality of maternal and newborn indicators. This paper reports results regarding the measurement of respectful care for women and newborns., Methods: At one EN-BIRTH study site in Pokhara, Nepal, we included additional questions during exit-survey interviews with women about their experiences (July 2017-July 2018). The questionnaire was based on seven mistreatment typologies: Physical; Sexual; or Verbal abuse; Stigma/discrimination; Failure to meet professional standards of care; Poor rapport between women and providers; and Health care denied due to inability to pay. We calculated associations between these typologies and potential determinants of health - ethnicity, age, sex, mode of birth - as possible predictors for reporting poor care., Results: Among 4296 women interviewed, none reported physical, sexual, or verbal abuse. 15.7% of women were dissatisfied with privacy, and 13.0% of women reported their birth experience did not meet their religious and cultural needs. In descriptive analysis, adjusted odds ratios and multivariate analysis showed primiparous women were less likely to report respectful care (β = 0.23, p-value < 0.0001). Women from Madeshi (a disadvantaged ethnic group) were more likely to report poor care (β = - 0.34; p-value 0.037) than women identifying as Chettri/Brahmin. Women who had caesarean section were less likely to report poor care during childbirth (β = - 0.42; p-value < 0.0001) than women with a vaginal birth. However, babies born by caesarean had a 98% decrease in the odds (aOR = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01-0.05) of receiving skin-to-skin contact than those with vaginal births., Conclusions: Measurement of respectful care at exit interview after hospital birth is challenging, and women generally reported 100% respectful care for themselves and their baby. Specific questions, with stratification by mode of birth, women's age and ethnicity, are important to identify those mistreated during care and to prioritise action. More research is needed to develop evidence-based measures to track experience of care, including zero separation for the mother-newborn pair, and to improve monitoring.

Background: Rigorous monitoring supports progress in achieving maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity reductions. Recent work to strengthen measurement for maternal and newborn health highlights the existence of a large number of indicators being used for this purpose. The definitions and data sources used to produce indicator estimates vary and challenges exist with completeness, accuracy, transparency, and timeliness of data. The objective of this study is to create a conceptual overview of how indicator validity is defined and understood by those who develop and use maternal and newborn health indicators., Methods: A conceptual framework of validity was developed using mixed methods. We were guided by principles for conceptual frameworks and by a review of the literature and key maternal and newborn health indicator guidance documents. We also conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 32 key informants chosen through purposive sampling., Results: We categorised indicator validity into three main types: criterion, convergent, and construct. Criterion or diagnostic validity, comparing a measure with a gold standard, has predominantly been used to assess indicators of care coverage and content. Studies assessing convergent validity quantify the extent to which two or more indicator measurement approaches, none of which is a gold-standard, relate. Key informants considered construct validity, or the accuracy of the operationalisation of a concept or phenomenon, a critical part of the overall assessment of indicator validity., Conclusion: Given concerns about the large number of maternal and newborn health indicators currently in use, a more consistent understanding of validity can help guide prioritization of key indicators and inform development of new indicators. All three types of validity are relevant for evaluating the performance of maternal and newborn health indicators. We highlight the need to establish a common language and understanding of indicator validity among the various global and local stakeholders working within maternal and newborn health., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: A large number of indicators are currently used to monitor the state of maternal and newborn health, including those capturing dimensions of health system and input, care access and availability, care quality and safety, coverage and outcomes, and impact. Validity of these indicators is a key issue in the process of assessing indicator performance and suitability. This paper aims to understand the meaning of indicator validity in the field of maternal and newborn health, and to identify key recommendations for future research., Methods: This qualitative study used purposive sampling to identify key informants until thematic saturation was achieved. We interviewed 32 respondents from a variety of backgrounds using semi-structured interviews covering five themes: the meaning of indicator validity, methodological approaches to assessing validity, acceptable levels of indicator validity, gaps in validation research, and recommendations for addressing these gaps. Interview transcripts were analysed data using thematic content approach., Results: Three conceptually different definitions of indicator validity were described by respondents. They considered indicator validity to encompass meaning and potential to spur action, going beyond diagnostic validity. Indicator validation was seen as an ongoing process of building and synthesising a wide range of evidence rather than a one-size-fits-all cut-off in diagnostic validity tests. Gaps identified included assessing validity of indicators of quality of care and indicators based on facility-level data, as well as expanding studies to a broader range of global settings. The key recommendation was to develop a coordinated approach to summarising and evaluating research on indicator validity, including capacity building in appraising and communicating the available evidence for country-specific needs., Conclusion: The findings will inform future recommendations around indicator testing and validation., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: A variety of global-level monitoring initiatives have recommended indicators for tracking progress in maternal and newborn health. As a first step supporting the work of WHO's Mother and Newborn Information for Tracking Outcomes and Results (MoNITOR) Technical Advisory Group, we aimed to compile and synthesize recommended indicators in order to document the landscape of maternal and newborn measurement and monitoring., Methods: We conducted a scoping review of indicators proposed by global multi-stakeholder groups to suggest next steps to further support maternal and newborn measurement and monitoring. Indicators pertaining to pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum/postnatal and newborn care were extracted and included in the indicator compilation, together with key indicator metadata. We examined patterns and relationships across the compiled indicators., Results: We identified 140 indicators linked to maternal and newborn health topics across the continuum of service provision. Fifty-five indicators relate to inputs and processes, 30 indicators relate to outputs, outcomes comprise 37 indicators in the database, and 18 impact indicators. A quarter of indicators proposed by global groups is either under development/discussion or is considered "aspirational", highlighting the currently evolving monitoring landscape. Although considerable efforts have been made to harmonize indicator recommendations, there are still relatively few indicators shared across key monitoring initiatives and some of those that are shared may have definitional variation., Conclusion: Rapid, wide-ranging work by a number of multi-stakeholder groups has resulted in a substantial number of indicators, many of which partially overlap and many are not supported with adequate documentation or guidance. The volume of indicators, coupled with the number of initiatives promoting different indicator lists, highlight the need for strengthened coordination and technical leadership to harmonize recommendations for improved measurement and monitoring of data related to maternal and newborn heath., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: In February 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) released "Strategies toward ending preventable maternal mortality (EPMM)" (EPMM Strategies), a direction-setting report outlining global targets and strategies for reducing maternal mortality in the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) period. In May 2015, the EPMM Working Group outlined a plan to develop a comprehensive monitoring framework to track progress toward the achievement of these targets and priorities. This monitoring framework was developed in two phases. Phase I, which focused on identifying indicators related to the proximal causes of maternal mortality, was completed in October 2015. This paper describes the process and results of Phase II, which was completed in November 2016 and aimed to build consensus on a set of indicators that capture information on the social, political, and economic determinants of maternal health and mortality., Findings: A total of 150 experts from more than 78 organizations worldwide participated in this second phase of the process to develop a comprehensive monitoring framework for EPMM. The experts considered a total of 118 indicators grouped into the 11 key themes outlined in the EPMM report, ultimately reaching consensus on a set of 25 indicators, five equity stratifiers, and one transparency stratifier., Conclusion: The indicators identified in Phase II will be used along with the Phase I indicators to monitor progress towards ending preventable maternal deaths. Together, they provide a means for monitoring not only the essential clinical interventions needed to save lives but also the equally important political, social, economic and health system determinants of maternal health and survival. These distal factors are essential to creating the enabling environment and high-performing health systems needed to ensure high-quality clinical care at the point of service for every woman, her fetus and newborn. They complement and support other monitoring efforts, in particular the "Survive, Thrive, and Transform" agenda laid out by the Global Strategy for Women's, Children's and Adolescents' Health (2016-2030) and the SDG3 global target on maternal mortality.

Background: An urgent priority in maternal, newborn and child health is to accelerate the scale-up of cost-effective essential interventions, especially during labor, the immediate postnatal period and for the treatment of serious infectious diseases and acute malnutrition.  Tracking intervention coverage is a key activity to support scale-up and in this paper we examine priorities in coverage measurement, distinguishing between essential interventions that can be measured now and those that require methodological development., Methods: We conceptualized a typology of indicators related to intervention coverage that distinguishes access to care from receipt of an intervention by the population in need.  We then built on documented evidence on coverage measurement to determine the status of indicators for essential interventions and to identify areas for development., Results: Contact indicators from pregnancy to childhood were identified as current indicators for immediate use, but indicators reflecting the quality of care provided during these contacts need development. At each contact point, some essential interventions can be measured now, but the need for development of indicators predominates around interventions at the time of birth and interventions to treat infections. Addressing this need requires improvements in routine facility based data capture, methods for linking provider and community-based data, and improved guidance for effective coverage measurement that reflects the provision of high-quality care., Conclusion: Coverage indicators for some essential interventions can be measured accurately through household surveys and be used to track progress in maternal, newborn and child health.  Other essential interventions currently rely on contact indicators as proxies for coverage but urgent attention is needed to identify new measurement approaches that directly and reliably measure their effective coverage.

Background: The Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP), launched in 2014, aims to end preventable newborn deaths and stillbirths, with national targets of ≤12 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births and ≤12 stillbirths per 1000 total births by 2030. This requires ambitious improvement of the data on care at birth and of small and sick newborns, particularly to track coverage, quality and equity., Methods: In a multistage process, a matrix of 70 indicators were assessed by the Every Newborn steering group. Indicators were graded based on their availability and importance to ENAP, resulting in 10 core and 10 additional indicators. A consultation process was undertaken to assess the status of each ENAP core indicator definition, data availability and measurement feasibility. Coverage indicators for the specific ENAP treatment interventions were assigned task teams and given priority as they were identified as requiring the most technical work. Consultations were held throughout., Results: ENAP published 10 core indicators plus 10 additional indicators. Three core impact indicators (neonatal mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, stillbirth rate) are well defined, with future efforts needed to focus on improving data quantity and quality. Three core indicators on coverage of care for all mothers and newborns (intrapartum/skilled birth attendance, early postnatal care, essential newborn care) have defined contact points, but gaps exist in measuring content and quality of the interventions. Four core (antenatal corticosteroids, neonatal resuscitation, treatment of serious neonatal infections, kangaroo mother care) and one additional coverage indicator for newborns at risk or with complications (chlorhexidine cord cleansing) lack indicator definitions or data, especially for denominators (population in need). To address these gaps, feasible coverage indicator definitions are presented for validity testing. Measurable process indicators to help monitor health service readiness are also presented. A major measurement gap exists to monitor care of small and sick babies, yet signal functions could be tracked similarly to emergency obstetric care., Conclusions: The ENAP Measurement Improvement Roadmap (2015-2020) outlines tools to be developed (e.g., improved birth and death registration, audit, and minimum perinatal dataset) and actions to test, validate and institutionalise proposed coverage indicators. The roadmap presents a unique opportunity to strengthen routine health information systems, crosslinking these data with civil registration and vital statistics and population-based surveys. Real measurement change requires intentional transfer of leadership to countries with the greatest disease burden and will be achieved by working with centres of excellence and existing networks.

Neonatal mortality accounts for 43% of under-five mortality. Consequently, improving newborn survival is a global priority. However, although there is increasing consensus on the packages and specific interventions that need to be scaled up to reduce neonatal mortality, there is a lack of clarity on the indicators needed to measure progress. In 2008, in an effort to improve newborn survival, the Newborn Indicators Technical Working Group (TWG) was convened by the Saving Newborn Lives program at Save the Children to provide a forum to develop the indicators and standard measurement tools that are needed to measure coverage of key newborn interventions. The TWG, which included evaluation and measurement experts, researchers, individuals from United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations, and donors, prioritized improved consistency of measurement of postnatal care for women and newborns and of immediate care behaviors and practices for newborns. In addition, the TWG promoted increased data availability through inclusion of additional questions in nationally representative surveys, such as the United States Agency for International Development-supported Demographic and Health Surveys and the United Nations Children's Fund-supported Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. Several studies have been undertaken that have informed revisions of indicators and survey tools, and global postnatal care coverage indicators have been finalized. Consensus has been achieved on three additional indicators for care of the newborn after birth (drying, delayed bathing, and cutting the cord with a clean instrument), and on testing two further indicators (immediate skin-to-skin care and applications to the umbilical cord). Finally, important measurement gaps have been identified regarding coverage data for evidence-based interventions, such as Kangaroo Mother Care and care seeking for newborn infection.