Errors in estimated gestational ages reduce the likelihood of health facility deliveries: Results from an observational cohort study in Zanzibar

listen audio

Study Justification:
– The study aimed to investigate the impact of errors in estimated delivery dates on health facility delivery among women enrolled in a maternal health program in Zanzibar.
– This research was important because accurate estimation of gestational age is crucial for providing appropriate antenatal care and improving maternal and neonatal health outcomes.
– While various gestational dating methods have been validated in research studies, their performance on a larger scale within health systems had not been evaluated.
Study Highlights:
– The study included 4225 women enrolled in the Safer Deliveries program in Zanzibar.
– The results showed that 28% of estimated delivery dates were a severe overestimate, 23% were a moderate overestimate, 41% were accurate, and 8% were an underestimate.
– Women with a moderate or severe overestimate of delivery dates were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility compared to women with an accurate delivery date.
– The study highlighted the importance of improving the estimation of delivery dates or addressing the effect of these errors within maternal health programs.
Study Recommendations:
– Maternal health programs should focus on improving the estimation of estimated delivery dates to reduce the likelihood of errors.
– Programs should consider implementing strategies to address the impact of errors in estimated delivery dates, such as providing additional support and education to women with moderate or severe overestimates.
– Further research is needed to explore the reasons behind the errors in estimated delivery dates and to develop effective interventions to mitigate their impact.
Key Role Players:
– Ministry of Health: Responsible for overseeing and coordinating maternal health programs.
– Community Health Workers (CHWs): Involved in identifying and registering pregnant women, providing education and support, and collecting data.
– Health facility staff: Collaborate with CHWs and provide antenatal care, delivery services, and postnatal care.
– D-tree International: Developed the digital platform used by CHWs to support case management and decision-making.
Cost Items for Planning Recommendations:
– Training and capacity building for CHWs and health facility staff.
– Development and maintenance of the digital platform.
– Communication and coordination costs between stakeholders.
– Monitoring and evaluation activities to assess the effectiveness of interventions.
– Educational materials and resources for pregnant women.
– Transportation support for women to access health facilities.
– Research and data analysis costs for further studies on the topic.

The strength of evidence for this abstract is 7 out of 10.
The evidence in the abstract is relatively strong, but there are some areas for improvement. The study design is observational, which limits the ability to establish causation. However, the study includes a large sample size (n=4225) and uses statistical analysis to assess the impact of errors in estimated delivery dates on health facility delivery. The study also adjusts for potential confounders such as age, district of residence, HIV status, and past home delivery. To improve the evidence, future research could consider using a randomized controlled trial design to establish causation and further control for potential confounders. Additionally, the abstract could provide more information on the validity and reliability of the data collection methods used in the study.

Background: Most maternal health programs in low- and middle- income countries estimate gestational age to provide appropriate antenatal care at the correct times throughout the pregnancy. Although various gestational dating methods have been validated in research studies, the performance of these methods has not been evaluated on a larger scale, such as within health systems. The objective of this research was to investigate the magnitude and impact of errors in estimated delivery dates on health facility delivery among women enrolled in a maternal health program in Zanzibar. Methods: This study included 4225 women who were enrolled in the Safer Deliveries program and delivered before May 31, 2017. The exposure of interest was error in estimated delivery date categorized as: severe overestimate, when estimated delivery date (EDD) was 36 days or more after the actual delivery date (ADD); moderate overestimate, when EDD was 15 to 35 days after ADD; accurate, when EDD was 6 days before to 14 days after ADD; and underestimate, when EDD was 7 days or more before ADD. We used Chi-squared tests to identify factors associated with errors in estimated delivery dates. We performed logistic regression to assess the impact of errors in estimated delivery dates on health facility delivery adjusting for age, district of residence, HIV status, and occurrence of past home delivery. Results: In our data, 28% of the estimated delivery dates were a severe overestimate, 23% moderate overestimate, 41% accurate, and 8% underestimate. Compared to women with an accurate delivery date, women with a moderate or severe overestimate were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: [0.59, 0.86]; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: [0.61, 0.91]). When adjusting for multiple confounders, women with moderate overestimates were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI: [0.61, 0.93]); the result moved slightly towards null for women with severe overestimates (AOR = 0.84, 95% CI: [0.69, 1.03]). Conclusions: The overestimation of women’s EDDs reduces the likelihood of health facility delivery. To address this, maternal health programs should improve estimation of EDD or attempt to curb the effect of these errors within their programs.

In 2015, the maternal and neonatal mortality ratios in Zanzibar, Tanzania were 307 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births and 29 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births, respectively [21]. The Safer Deliveries program aimed to reduce the high rates of maternal and neonatal mortality by increasing the number of pregnant women who deliver in a health care facility and attend prenatal and postnatal check-ups. This program began in 2011 and has been implemented in phases, each phase increasing in scope and scale with the third phase starting in January 2016. As of May 2017, the Safer Deliveries program was active in six (out of 11) districts in Zanzibar on the islands of Unguja and Pemba. The program trains CHWs selected by the Ministry of Health to participate in the program based on their literacy, expressed commitment to the improvement of health, and respectability in their communities. The CHWs work with community leaders and staff at nearby health facilities to identify and register pregnant women. Typically, a pregnancy is confirmed at the health facility during the first antenatal care visit using a pregnancy test. In the absence of reagent for the pregnant test, missing two consecutive periods and clinical evidence of an enlarged uterus is used to determine pregnancy status. During registration, the CHW meets with the woman, her husband and/or other influential members of the family to discuss and enroll in the program. The CHW visits the woman in her home three times during pregnancy; before 7 months; between 7 and 8 months and again between 8 and 9 months gestational age, to screen for danger signs and provide education, counseling and support to help the woman prepare for a facility delivery. The timing of the visits is based on the estimated delivery date. The program is supported by a digital platform developed by D-tree International, built using Mangologic software. All CHWs have a mobile app running on a low-end Android smartphone which supports case management and decision support to guide the health worker through each visit. The mobile app guides development of a tailored birth plan based on the woman’s obstetric history and risk factors to identify the most appropriate health facility based on her risk profile. The app then uses the woman’s estimated gestational age to provide tailored messages at the appropriate phase of her pregnancy, screen for danger signs and coordinate referrals to a health facility, calculate and track savings needed for transportation and delivery expenses, and links the woman with a community driver for transportation during delivery. All data collected by the CHWs on the mobile app are synchronized in quasi-real time to the Safer Deliveries server, which is available as raw data and visualized on a program dashboard to support monitoring and programmatic decision-making. This study included women enrolled in the Safer Deliveries program by May 31, 2017 (n = 9740) who had a live birth by May 31, 2017 (n = 4511). We excluded: 253 women from the newly-added Mkoani district of Pemba Island, 2 women with missing LMP date and EDDs, and 31 women with invalid enrollment times. Our final study population included 4225 women. We used data collected in the mobile app as part of routine care. At enrollment, the CHW collected demographic and health information to support clinical care for the mother. The CHW used the woman’s Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) card, if available, to record information about the EDD and antenatal care visits. The EDD on the RCH card was ascertained at a facility via last menstrual period or ultrasound, if available at the facility. If the woman does not have an RCH card or there is no EDD, the date of LMP and timing of ANC visits were calculated using self-reported date of LMP and this date was used to calculate an EDD. Although we did not collect information on whether EDD was ascertained by date of LMP or ultrasound, only two Primary Health Care Centers and two hospitals in Unguja have an ultrasound machine available; however, these machines may not be commonly used. Further, only 419 (10%) women reported an ANC visit at one of these health centers, and the distribution of preterm, term, and post-term classifications did not significantly differ from women without ultrasound access at their ANC visit(s) (P = 0.834). Due to this, we believe that the vast majority of the delivery dates were calculated based on LMP at an antenatal care or community health worker visit. The CHW also recorded information about obstetric history at the enrollment and categorized the pregnancy as low, medium, or high risk. Based on the risk category, the woman was advised to deliver at a specific facility and given a target amount of money that she should save for transportation to the facility based on pre-negotiated rates with local drivers participating in the program. At enrollment and each subsequent visit, the CHW collected details about how the woman has prepared for delivery, such as amount of money saved, transportation plan, and number of antenatal visits at a health facility. After the woman delivered, the CHW recorded the date and location of delivery. Two continuous measures were calculated based on the EDD: (1) difference between actual delivery date (ADD) and EDD and (2) estimated gestational age at delivery (weeks). The difference in delivery dates was coded as a categorical variable with four levels: severe overestimate (EDD was 36 days or more after ADD), moderate overestimate (EDD was 15 to 35 days after ADD), accurate (EDD was 6 days before to 14 days after ADD), and underestimate (EDD was 7 days or more before ADD). The accurate category was defined based on multiple studies that reported actual delivery dates to be accurate within 7 and 14-days of the estimated delivery date due to LMP dating error and/or natural variability in length of gestation [1, 2, 13, 14]. We chose to categorize overestimate as moderate and severe to allow the odds of health facility delivery to vary by severity of LMP misestimation. The cutoff of 36 days for severe overestimation was based on the low proportion ( 99% of sample). All statistical analyses were performed in Stata V15 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA).

N/A

The recommendation to improve access to maternal health based on the study mentioned is to improve the estimation of estimated delivery dates (EDDs) or address the impact of errors in EDDs within maternal health programs. The study found that errors in estimated delivery dates reduced the likelihood of health facility delivery among women enrolled in the Safer Deliveries program in Zanzibar. Specifically, women with a moderate or severe overestimate of their EDD were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility compared to women with an accurate delivery date.

To implement this recommendation, maternal health programs can consider the following strategies:

1. Strengthen training and guidelines: Provide comprehensive training to healthcare providers and community health workers (CHWs) on accurate methods for estimating gestational age. This can include using validated dating methods such as ultrasound or reliable last menstrual period (LMP) calculations. Develop clear guidelines and protocols for estimating EDDs and ensure that healthcare providers and CHWs adhere to these guidelines.

2. Improve access to ultrasound: Increase access to ultrasound machines in health facilities, particularly in areas with limited availability. This can help improve the accuracy of estimating gestational age and reduce errors in EDDs. Additionally, provide training to healthcare providers on the proper use and interpretation of ultrasound for dating pregnancies.

3. Enhance data collection and monitoring: Implement digital platforms or mobile applications, similar to the one used in the Safer Deliveries program, to collect and track data on estimated delivery dates and actual delivery dates. This can help identify errors in EDDs and monitor the impact on health facility delivery rates. Regularly analyze and review the data to identify trends and areas for improvement.

4. Community engagement and education: Conduct community awareness campaigns to educate pregnant women and their families about the importance of accurate estimation of gestational age and the benefits of delivering in a health facility. Emphasize the potential risks associated with errors in EDDs and promote the use of reliable dating methods. Involve community leaders and influential members to support and encourage pregnant women to seek antenatal care and deliver in health facilities.

5. Continuous quality improvement: Establish mechanisms for continuous quality improvement within maternal health programs. Regularly assess and evaluate the accuracy of estimated delivery dates and the impact on health facility delivery rates. Use feedback from healthcare providers, CHWs, and women themselves to identify challenges and implement strategies for improvement.

By implementing these recommendations, maternal health programs can improve the accuracy of estimated delivery dates and increase the likelihood of women delivering in health facilities. This can contribute to reducing maternal and neonatal mortality rates and improving overall maternal health outcomes.
AI Innovations Description
The recommendation to improve access to maternal health based on the study mentioned is to improve the estimation of estimated delivery dates (EDDs) or address the impact of errors in EDDs within maternal health programs. The study found that errors in estimated delivery dates reduced the likelihood of health facility delivery among women enrolled in the Safer Deliveries program in Zanzibar. Specifically, women with a moderate or severe overestimate of their EDD were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility compared to women with an accurate delivery date.

To implement this recommendation, maternal health programs can consider the following strategies:

1. Strengthen training and guidelines: Provide comprehensive training to healthcare providers and community health workers (CHWs) on accurate methods for estimating gestational age. This can include using validated dating methods such as ultrasound or reliable last menstrual period (LMP) calculations. Develop clear guidelines and protocols for estimating EDDs and ensure that healthcare providers and CHWs adhere to these guidelines.

2. Improve access to ultrasound: Increase access to ultrasound machines in health facilities, particularly in areas with limited availability. This can help improve the accuracy of estimating gestational age and reduce errors in EDDs. Additionally, provide training to healthcare providers on the proper use and interpretation of ultrasound for dating pregnancies.

3. Enhance data collection and monitoring: Implement digital platforms or mobile applications, similar to the one used in the Safer Deliveries program, to collect and track data on estimated delivery dates and actual delivery dates. This can help identify errors in EDDs and monitor the impact on health facility delivery rates. Regularly analyze and review the data to identify trends and areas for improvement.

4. Community engagement and education: Conduct community awareness campaigns to educate pregnant women and their families about the importance of accurate estimation of gestational age and the benefits of delivering in a health facility. Emphasize the potential risks associated with errors in EDDs and promote the use of reliable dating methods. Involve community leaders and influential members to support and encourage pregnant women to seek antenatal care and deliver in health facilities.

5. Continuous quality improvement: Establish mechanisms for continuous quality improvement within maternal health programs. Regularly assess and evaluate the accuracy of estimated delivery dates and the impact on health facility delivery rates. Use feedback from healthcare providers, CHWs, and women themselves to identify challenges and implement strategies for improvement.

By implementing these recommendations, maternal health programs can improve the accuracy of estimated delivery dates and increase the likelihood of women delivering in health facilities. This can contribute to reducing maternal and neonatal mortality rates and improving overall maternal health outcomes.
AI Innovations Methodology
To simulate the impact of the main recommendations mentioned in the abstract on improving access to maternal health, the following methodology can be used:

1. Data collection: Collect data on the current practices and outcomes related to estimating delivery dates and health facility delivery rates in the target population. This can include information on the methods used for estimating gestational age, the prevalence of errors in estimated delivery dates, and the proportion of women delivering in health facilities.

2. Intervention design: Based on the recommendations mentioned in the abstract, design an intervention that incorporates the strategies outlined, such as strengthening training and guidelines, improving access to ultrasound, enhancing data collection and monitoring, community engagement and education, and continuous quality improvement.

3. Sample selection: Select a representative sample of pregnant women from the target population who are enrolled in maternal health programs. Ensure that the sample includes a diverse range of demographic characteristics and risk profiles.

4. Randomization: Randomly assign the selected sample into two groups: an intervention group and a control group. The intervention group will receive the implemented strategies, while the control group will continue with the current standard of care.

5. Implementation: Implement the intervention strategies in the intervention group. This can involve providing training to healthcare providers and CHWs, improving access to ultrasound machines, implementing digital platforms for data collection and monitoring, conducting community awareness campaigns, and establishing mechanisms for continuous quality improvement.

6. Data collection and monitoring: Collect data on the implementation of the intervention, including the uptake of the strategies, adherence to guidelines, and any challenges or barriers encountered. Monitor the data regularly to assess the impact of the intervention on the accuracy of estimated delivery dates and health facility delivery rates.

7. Analysis: Analyze the collected data to evaluate the impact of the intervention on improving access to maternal health. Compare the outcomes between the intervention group and the control group, focusing on the accuracy of estimated delivery dates and the proportion of women delivering in health facilities. Use statistical methods, such as chi-squared tests and logistic regression, to assess the significance of any differences observed.

8. Evaluation and interpretation: Evaluate the results of the analysis and interpret the findings in relation to the main recommendations mentioned in the abstract. Assess the effectiveness of the implemented strategies in improving access to maternal health and identify any areas for further improvement or refinement.

9. Reporting and dissemination: Prepare a comprehensive report summarizing the methodology, findings, and recommendations based on the simulation. Disseminate the findings to relevant stakeholders, including policymakers, healthcare providers, and community members, to inform decision-making and guide future interventions.

By following this methodology, researchers and policymakers can gain insights into the potential impact of implementing the recommended strategies on improving access to maternal health in a specific context. This simulation can help inform the design and implementation of effective interventions to address the challenges identified in the study.

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email