Search

Background: Preterm birth (gestational age (GA) <37 weeks) is the leading cause of child mortality worldwide. However, GA is rarely assessed in population-based surveys, the major data source in low/middle-income countries. We examined the performance of new questions to measure GA in household surveys, a subset of which had linked early pregnancy ultrasound GA data. Methods: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of 69,176 women was undertaken (2017-2018) in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda. We included questions regarding GA in months (GAm) for all women and GA in weeks (GAw) for a subset; we also asked if the baby was 'born before expected' to estimate preterm birth rates. Survey data were linked to surveillance data in two sites, and to ultrasound pregnancy dating at <24 weeks in one site. We assessed completeness and quality of reported GA. We examined the validity of estimated preterm birth rates by sensitivity and specificity, over/under-reporting of GAw in survey compared to ultrasound by multinomial logistic regression, and explored perceptions about GA and barriers and enablers to its reporting using focus group discussions (n = 29). Results: GAm questions were almost universally answered, but heaping on 9 months resulted in underestimation of preterm birth rates. Preference for reporting GAw in even numbers was evident, resulting in heaping at 36 weeks; hence, over-estimating preterm birth rates, except in Matlab where the peak was at 38 weeks. Questions regarding 'born before expected' were answered but gave implausibly low preterm birth rates in most sites. Applying ultrasound as the gold standard in Matlab site, sensitivity of survey-GAw for detecting preterm birth (GAw <37) was 60% and specificity was 93%. Focus group findings suggest that women perceive GA to be important, but usually counted in months. Antenatal care attendance, women's education and health cards may improve reporting. Conclusions: This is the first published study assessing GA reporting in surveys, compared with the gold standard of ultrasound. Reporting GAw within 5 years' recall is feasible with high completeness, but accuracy is affected by heaping. Compared to ultrasound-GAw, results are reasonably specific, but sensitivity needs to be improved. We propose revised questions based on the study findings for further testing and validation in settings where pregnancy ultrasound data and/or last menstrual period dates/GA recorded in pregnancy are available. Specific training of interviewers is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An estimated 40% of pregnancies globally are unintended. Measurement of pregnancy intention in low- and middle-income countries relies heavily on surveys, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), yet few studies have evaluated survey questions. We examined questions for measuring pregnancy intention, which are already in the DHS, and additional questions and investigated associations with maternity care utilisation and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: The EN-INDEPTH study surveyed 69,176 women of reproductive age in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Uganda and Bangladesh (2017–2018). We investigated responses to survey questions regarding pregnancy intention in two ways: (i) pregnancy-specific intention and (ii) desired-versus-actual family size. We assessed data completeness for each and level of agreement between the two questions, and with future fertility desire. We analysed associations between pregnancy intention and number and timing of antenatal care visits, place of delivery, and stillbirth, neonatal death and low birthweight. Results: Missing data were <2% in all questions. Responses to pregnancy-specific questions were more consistent with future fertility desire than desired-versus-actual family size responses. Using the pregnancy-specific questions, 7.4% of women who reported their last pregnancy as unwanted reported wanting more children in the future, compared with 45.1% of women in the corresponding desired family size category. Women reporting unintended pregnancies were less likely to attend 4+ antenatal care visits (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64–0.83), have their first visit during the first trimester (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63–0.79), and report stillbirths (aOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44–0.73) or neonatal deaths (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.96), compared with women reporting intended pregnancies. We found no associations for desired-versus-actual family size intention. Conclusions: We found the pregnancy-specific intention questions to be a much more reliable assessment of pregnancy intention than the desired-versus-actual family size questions, despite a reluctance to report pregnancies as unwanted rather than mistimed. The additional questions were useful and may complement current DHS questions, although these are not the only possibilities. As women with unintended pregnancies were more likely to miss timely and frequent antenatal care, implementation research is required to improve coverage and quality of care for those women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]