Search

Living conditions and other factors in urban unplanned settlements present unique challenges for improving maternal and newborn health (MNH), yet MNH inequalities associated with such challenges are not well understood. This study examined trends and inequalities in coverage of MNH services in the last 20 years in unplanned and planned settlements of Lusaka City, Zambia. Geospatial information was used to map Lusaka’s settlements and health facilities. Zambia Demographic Health Surveys (ZDHS 2001, 2007, 2013/2014, and 2018) were used to compare antenatal care (ANC), institutional delivery, and Cesarean section (C-section) coverage, and neonatal mortality rates between the poorer 60% and richer 40% households. Health Management Information System (HMIS) data from 2018 to 2021 were used to compute service volumes and coverage rates for ANC1 and ANC4, and institutional delivery and C-sections by facility level and type in planned and unplanned settlements. Although the correlation is not exact, our data analysis showed close alignment; and thus, we opted to use the 60% poorer and 40% richer groups as a proxy for households in unplanned versus planned settlements. Unplanned settlements were serviced by primary centers or first-level hospitals. ZDHS findings show that by 2018, at least one ANC visit and institutional delivery became nearly universal throughout Lusaka, but early and four or more ANC visits, C-sections, and neonatal mortality rates remained worse among poorer than richer women in ZDHS. In HMIS, ANC and institutional delivery volumes were highest in public facilities, especially in unplanned settlements. The volume of C-sections was much greater within facilities in planned than unplanned settlements. Our study exposed persistent gaps in timing and use of ANC and emergency obstetric care between unplanned and planned communities. Closing such gaps requires strengthening outreach early and consistently in pregnancy and increasing emergency obstetric care capacities and referrals to improve access to important MNH services for women and newborns in Lusaka’s unplanned settlements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Routine assessment of health facility capacity to provide abortion and post-abortion care can inform policy and programmes to expand access and improve quality. Since 2018, abortion and/or post-abortion care have been integrated into two WHO health facility assessment tools: the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment and the Harmonised Health Facility Assessment. We discuss lessons learnt through experiences integrating abortion into these standardised tools. Our experiences highlight the feasibility of including abortion in health facility assessments across a range of legal contexts. Factors facilitating the integration of abortion include cross-country collaboration and experience sharing, timely inputs into tool adaptations, clear leadership, close relationships among key stakeholders as in assessment coordination groups, use of locally appropriate terminology to refer to abortion and reference to national policies and guidelines. To facilitate high-quality data collection, we identify considerations around question sequencing in tool design, appropriate terminology and the need to balance the normalisation of abortion with adequate sensitisation and education of data collectors. To facilitate appropriate and consistent analysis, future work must ensure adequate disaggregation of recommended and non-recommended abortion methods, alignment with national guidelines and development of a standardised approach for measuring abortion service readiness. Measurement of abortion service availability and readiness should be a routine practice and a standardised component of health facility assessment tools. Evidence generated by health facility assessments that include abortion monitoring can guide efforts to expand access to timely and effective care and help normalise abortion as a core component of sexual and reproductive healthcare., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)