Objectives To measure the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and perinatal health services and outcomes in Mozambique. Design This is an observational study analysing routine service delivery data using interrupted time series analysis. We used 43 months of district-level panel data with April 2020 as the point of interruption, adjusting for seasonality and population growth to analyse service utilisation outcomes. Setting The 222 public health facilities in Nampula Province, Mozambique, from January 2018 to July 2021. Outcome measures The change in the number of antenatal care (ANC) visits and facility deliveries, and the change in the rate of adverse birth outcomes at pandemic onset and over time compared with expected levels and trends, respectively. Results There were no significant disruptions to ANC at pandemic onset. Following this, there was a significant monthly increase of 29.8 (18.2-41.4) first ANC visits and 11.3 (5.5-17.2) ANC visits within the first trimester per district above prepandemic trends. There was no significant change in the number of fourth ANC visits completed. At the onset of COVID-19, districts experienced a significant decrease of 71.1 (-110.5 to -31.7) facility deliveries, but the rate then increased significantly above prepandemic trends. There was no significant increase in any adverse birth outcomes during the pandemic. Conversely, districts observed a significant monthly decrease of 5.3 uterine rupture cases (-9.9 to -0.6) and 19.2 stillbirths (-33.83 to -4.58) per 100 000 facility deliveries below prepandemic trends. There was a significant drop of 23.5 cases of neonatal sepsis/100 000 facility deliveries per district at pandemic onset. Conclusion Despite pandemic interference, Nampula Province saw no disruptions to ANC, only temporary disruptions to facility deliveries and no increases in adverse birth outcomes. ANC visits surprisingly increased, and the rates of uterine rupture, stillbirth and neonatal sepsis decreased, suggesting that Nampula Province may offer insights about health system resilience.
The first case of COVID-19 in Mozambique was confirmed on 22 March 2020, with the government announcing a state of emergency on 30 March 2020.11 12 Policy measures to limit COVID-19 transmission, and their enforcement, have evolved throughout the pandemic in response to the rapidly changing situation. In Mozambique, such measures have included restrictions on social gatherings, limiting public transportation and school closures.13 Similar to other sub-Saharan African countries, the prevalence of COVID-19 cases and deaths has remained relatively low in Mozambique.14 These pandemic dynamics may be due to limited testing, a young population, pre-existing immunity and early adoption of mitigation measures.15 Over the last two decades, maternal mortality has improved in Mozambique but remains high, with a maternal mortality ratio estimated at 408 in 2011.16 Haemorrhage represents the most common direct cause of maternal death in the country, followed by pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.17 This study takes place specifically in Nampula Province, located in northern Mozambique and home to over 6 million residents, making it the most populous province nationwide.18 Facility delivery rates in Nampula Province have risen considerably from 53% in 201116 to 74% in 2017.19 However, the province continues to face widespread poverty, major health and gender inequities, insufficient numbers of health workers, poor health system infrastructure and persistent commodity shortages.16 18 20 We extracted routine service data reported monthly by health facilities to the national health management information system (HMIS), from January 2018 to July 2021, for which we had full access. The start of the study period was selected to limit inclusion of secular trends related to changes in data collection or other health system shocks. Data from all public health facilities providing antenatal or maternity services during the study period in Nampula Province were included in the analysis. This includes 222 health facilities (9 hospitals and 213 primary care facilities) across the 23 districts in Nampula Province. There are few private health facilities offering maternity services in Nampula Province and they do not report to the HMIS, as such, they were not included in this analysis. We assessed four indicators of service utilisation including number of clients attending a first ANC visit (ANC-1), number of clients attending ANC-1 within 12 weeks of pregnancy (early ANC), number of clients attending a fourth ANC visit (ANC-4) and number of health facility deliveries. We examined seven maternal health outcomes (number of cases of severe pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, postpartum haemorrhage, uterine rupture, obstructed labour, sepsis, caesarean delivery and death) and three perinatal outcomes (number of stillbirths, cases of neonatal sepsis and asphyxia). The use of HMIS data presents some challenges, including lack of completeness and reporting errors. To limit the effect of these issues, we examined all data entries above the 95th percentile for each outcome variable, for each health facility type, and identified logical inconsistencies (eg, if the number of maternal deaths was higher than the number of deliveries reported by a health facility in a given month). We then reviewed these entries with Ministry of Health staff at the health facility and district level, comparing the HMIS data to the facility registers, to verify and correct any errors. We assumed zero values for health facilities that do not offer certain services (antenatal, intrapartum or surgical). There were less than 4% missing data for ANC-1, ANC-4 and facility deliveries during the study period, with little change during the pandemic period (see online supplemental figure S1). Reporting of early ANC increased over time, but this was independent of the pandemic. Since the service utilisation outcome variables had a small degree of missing data, we performed linear interpolation of missing values based on values before and after the missing points at each health facility for its period of operation. bmjopen-2022-062975supp001.pdf Health outcome data (maternal and perinatal outcomes) were almost exclusively reported by health facilities when there were cases to report, such that fewer than 0.5% of facilities reported zero cases for any given month in the prepandemic period (online supplemental table S1). Health facilities are required to report on a monthly basis, and all facilities submitted data each month during the study period, indicating that they did not miss a reporting period. Given this, we assumed that missing values for these outcomes were zero. Completeness of health outcomes did not change in response to the onset of the pandemic but did increase around November to December 2020 (online supplemental figure S1). Monthly health facility data were then aggregated to the district level to account for the health system networks of care within districts. District counts of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes were calculated as rates using the number of health facility deliveries reported in a given district-month per 100 000 deliveries. Annual district-level population projections from the 2017 Mozambique census were linked to the routine service statistics dataset by district to account for population growth.18 Data were imported into Stata V.15 for preparation and analysis.21 Descriptive analyses were conducted to characterise the mean monthly volume of visits or cases as well as the mean rate of cases in the prepandemic and pandemic periods. We performed an interrupted time series regression analysis for each outcome of interest with April 2020 as the point of interruption, since Mozambique issued a state of emergency on 30 March 2020.22 This model uses district-level panel data and provides ordinary least-squares estimates with robust standard errors for the trends and changes in trends before and after interruption.23 We observed strong evidence of seasonality in the time series of each outcome variable (see online supplemental figure S2). As such, we adjusted for seasonality by including a fixed effect for each calendar month from February through December, with January as the reference. This accounted for effects associated with the same month over different years that may affect timing of pregnancy, care-seeking and quality of care. The correlation between the calendar month and time index variables was small (0.06) and not statistically significant. The models of service utilisation outcomes also included a covariate to adjust for population growth. Models of health outcomes are per 100 000 facility deliveries. For health outcomes, we used the model where Ytd represents the average of district d at time t (month); Xtd is a postinterruption indicator (0 for pre; 1 for post); Ttd is an index to represent the time in months, with t={1,…,43}; and Monthk is a dummy indicator representing the kth calendar month of observation, with k={2,…,12}. Here, β0 represents the average number of services provided/cases reported across districts at the beginning of the pre-COVID-19 period; β1 represents the average monthly change in the number of services provided/cases reported during the prepandemic period; β2 represents the change in the outcome in the first pandemic month; β3 represents the difference in the outcome trend between the pandemic and the prepandemic periods; γ2 – γ12 represent the changes associated with the months February through December, with January as the reference; and єtd is an error term that follows a second-order autoregressive process (lag chosen based on Cumby-Huizinga tests for time series autocorrelation24). For service utilisation outcomes, we fit a model as just described, with the addition of a variable to represent the annual district estimate of the population of reproductive-age women to account for population growth. Linear combinations were used to estimate the difference in trends across the two periods. We used the model for each outcome to obtain a prediction of the counterfactual—the expected trend had there not been an interruption. We calculated the difference between the model prediction and the actual observation for each month. For health outcome variables, this was calculated in rates per 100 000 deliveries as well as the absolute number of cases. The sum of the monthly differences represents the cumulative effect of the interruption over the months observed. Results are considered significant at the p<0.05 level for two-sided comparisons. This research was done without patient or public involvement.