Service delivery models that promote linkages to PrEP for adolescent girls and young women and men in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an emerging biomedical prevention intervention. Documenting PrEP service delivery models (SDMs) that promote linkage to and continuation of PrEP will inform guidelines and maximise roll-out. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise and appraise the effectiveness and feasibility of PrEP SDMs designed to promote linkage to PrEP care among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) and men in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary quantitative and qualitative studies published in English and conducted in SSA were included. No restrictions on the date of publication were applied. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Methodology outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual was followed. PubMed, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science and online-conference abstract archives were searched. CHARTING METHODS: Data on article, population, intervention characteristics and key outcomes was charted in REDCap. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Of the 1204 identified records, 37 (met the inclusion criteria. Health facility-based integrated models of PrEP delivery with family planning, maternal and child health or sexual and reproductive services to AGYW resulted in PrEP initiation of 16%-90%. Community-based drop-in centres (66%) was the preferred PrEP outlet for AGYW compared with public clinics (25%) and private clinics (9%). Most men preferred community-based delivery models. Among individuals who initiated PrEP, 50% were men, 62% were <35 years old and 97% were tested at health fairs compared with home testing. Integrated antiretroviral therapy (ART)-PrEP delivery was favoured among serodiscordant couples with 82.9% of couples using PrEP or ART with no HIV seroconversions. PrEP initiation within healthcare facilities was increased by perceived client-friendly services and non-judgemental healthcare workers. Barriers to PrEP initiation included distance to travel to and time spent at health facilities and perceived community stigma. PrEP SDMs for AGYW and men need to be tailored to the needs and preferences for each group. Programme implementers should promote community-based SDMs to increase PrEP initiation among AGYW and men.

Effect of maternal cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy on birth weight and cardiometabolic risk factors in infants, children and adolescents: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy are particularly prevalent in low socioeconomic status populations, with an adverse association with birth outcomes and cardiometabolic risk factors. However, the direct and indirect effects of prenatal cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy on cardiometabolic risk in offspring have been rather inconsistent. This may be attributed to multiple factors, such as the amount and timing of exposure to tobacco smoking and alcohol during pregnancy; the influence of maternal, environmental and socioeconomic factors; or how risk factors were defined by individual researchers and studies. Therefore, this review aims to provide a summary of the most recent evidence on birth outcomes and cardiometabolic risk in children associated with alcohol and/or tobacco exposure in utero. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science will be searched to identify published articles from 1 January 2001. Clinical studies that investigate the association between maternal cigarette smoking or alcohol consumption and birth weight and cardiometabolic risk factors in infants, children and adolescents will be included. Prospective cohort, case-control studies and birth cohort studies will be eligible for inclusion. Grey literature will be searched including conference proceedings, Google Scholar and the ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. Only studies published in English will be included, with no restrictions regarding country, race or gender. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature search and article screening. Eligibility criteria will be based on the population (infants, children, adolescents), exposure (maternal cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption or both), comparator (control group with no exposure during pregnancy) and outcomes (birth weight and cardiometabolic risk factors). Quality assessment and risk of bias will be assessed using a risk of bias tool for observational studies, and data will be extracted for analysis using a researcher-generated data extraction form. A meta-analysis will be performed to estimate pooled effect sizes if there are sufficient good-quality studies available. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored using subgroup analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical clearance will not be required as this review will extract publicly available secondary data. Findings from this review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-review journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021286630.

Prevalence of Anaemia, Iron Deficiency, and Iron Deficiency Anaemia in Women of Reproductive Age and Children under 5 Years of Age in South Africa (1997-2021): A Systematic Review.

Using a systematic review method, the prevalence of anaemia, iron deficiency (ID), and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) in women of reproductive age (WRA) and children under 5 years of age was obtained to inform priorities in health planning and policy in South Africa. We searched electronic databases for articles published between 1997 and 2021. A total of 713 articles were identified, of which 14 articles comprising 9649 WRA and 4085 children were included. Since most of the included studies were of low quality, we did not pool data in a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity (I2 > 75%). In WRA, anaemia prevalence ranged from 22.0% to 44.0%; ID from 7.7% and 19.0%; and IDA from 10.5% to 9.7%. The prevalence of anaemia in pregnancy was 29.0% to 42.7%; and 60.6% to 71.3% in HIV-infected pregnant women. Three national surveys reported anaemia in children at 28.9%, 10.7%, and 61.3%, respectively. Overall, among the children under 5 years old, anaemia was more prevalent in 1-year-olds (52.0%) compared to the other age groups. Between 2005 and 2012, ID increased by 3.8% and IDA decreased by 83.2% in children. Anaemia in WRA and children under 5 years in South Africa was a moderate public health concern. Therefore, interventions addressing anaemia should be intensified, and policies on iron supplementation and food fortification need to be revised and aligned to the WHO multiple micronutrient supplementation recommendations.

Multimorbidity in South Africa: a systematic review of prevalence studies.

OBJECTIVES: To review prevalence studies of multimorbidity in South Africa to identify prevalence estimates, common disease clusters and factors associated with multimorbidity. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: South Africa (general community and healthcare facilities). DATA SOURCES: Articles were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Science Direct and JSTOR). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies addressing the prevalence of multimorbidity in South Africa were eligible for inclusion. A systematic search was done in various databases up to December 2020. A risk of bias assessment was conducted for each article using a modified checklist. STUDY SELECTION: Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts; assessed the risk of bias of each study and extracted data. Included studies were described using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: In total, 1407 titles were retrieved; of which 10 articles were included in the narrative synthesis. Six studies had a low risk of bias and three had a moderate risk of bias. One study was not assessed for risk of bias, because there was no criteria that apply to routine health information systems. Three of the included studies were population-based surveys, four were community-based cohorts and three cross-sectional studies of health facility data. The prevalence of multimorbidity was low to moderate (3%-23%) in studies that included younger people or had a wide range of selected age groups; and moderate to high (30%-87%) in studies of older adults. The common disease clusters were hypertension and diabetes, hypertension and HIV, and TB and HIV. CONCLUSION: All studies indicated that multimorbidity is a norm in South Africa, especially among older adults. Hypertension is the main driver of multimorbidity. Research on multimorbidity in South Africa needs to be strengthened with high-quality study designs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020196895.

Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes in South Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Synthesis of existing prevalence data using rigorous systematic review methods is considered an effective strategy to generate representative and robust prevalence figures to inform health planning and policy. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify, collate, and synthesise all studies reporting the prevalence of total and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in South Africa. Four databases, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and African Index Medicus were searched for articles published between January 1997 and June 2020. A total of 1886 articles were identified, of which 11 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence in individuals 25 years and older was 15.25% (11.07-19.95%) for T2DM, 9.59% (5.82-14.17%) for IGT, 3.55% (0.38-9.61%) for IFG, and 8.29% (4.97-12.34%) for newly diagnosed T2DM. Although our pooled estimate may be imprecise due to significant heterogeneity across studies with regard to population group, age, gender, setting, diagnostic test, and study design, we provide evidence that the burden of glucose intolerance in South Africa is high. These factors contribute to the paucity of representative T2DM prevalence data. There is a need for well-designed epidemiological studies that use best-practice and standardised methods to assess prevalence.

Prevalence of multimorbidity in South Africa: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity has increased globally over the past two decades, due to ageing populations and increased burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). In a country like South Africa, with a growing burden of NCDs and a high prevalence of HIV, information on multimorbidity can improve planning for healthcare delivery and utilisation, and reduce costs in the context of constrained health resources. This review aims to synthesise prevalence studies on multimorbidity, and identify dominant clusters and trends of multimorbidity in South Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Scopus, JSTOR, POPLINE, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and CINAHL), and the reference lists of included articles. Two researchers will independently screen title and abstracts, and then full text to identify studies published before and in 2020 that report on prevalence of multimorbidity in South Africa. Risk of bias assessments will be done for each study. Information on the prevalence of multimorbidity and disease clusters will be extracted from each study. Where possible, prevalence of specific clusters of multimorbidity will be pooled using a random effects meta-analysis to account for variability between studies. The I2 statistic will be used to establish the extent of heterogeneity due to variation in prevalence estimates rather than due to chance. The systematic review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Only published journal articles will be included in the systematic review. This review received ethics approval as part of a larger project by the University of the Western Cape Biomedical Science Research Ethics Committee (BM20/5/8). The findings from this research will be used to estimate the prevalence of multimorbidity in South Africa and will contribute to the design of future research projects. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal article. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020196895.

Mechanical Debridement with Antibiotics in the Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis: Effect on Systemic Biomarkers-A Systematic Review.

In this systematic review, we assessed the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics as an adjunctive therapy to mechanical debridement in improving inflammatory systemic biomarkers, as compared to mechanical debridement alone, among adults with chronic periodontitis. We searched relevant electronic databases for eligible randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted meta-analysis, assessed heterogeneity, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADEPro software. We included 19 studies (n = 1350 participants), representing 18 randomized controlled trials and found very little or no impact of antibiotics on inflammatory biomarkers. A meta-analysis of eight studies demonstrated a mean reduction of 0.26 mm in the periodontal pockets at three months (mean difference [MD] -0.26, 95%CI: -0.36 to -0.17, n = 372 participants, moderate certainty of evidence) in favor of the antibiotics. However, results from five studies reporting clinical attachment level (mm) yielded little or no difference at three months (MD -0.16, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.03, n = 217 participants) between antibiotic and placebo groups. There is little or no evidence that adjunctive systemic antibiotics therapy improves inflammatory systemic biomarkers, compared to mechanical debridement alone, among adults with chronic periodontitis.

Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum constipation, with symptoms, such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones, and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake are usually encouraged. Although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation, the effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation should be ascertained. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, and two trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019), and screened reference lists of retrieved trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo, or no intervention in postpartum women. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions). Quasi-randomised trials and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion; none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We did not pool results in a meta-analysis, but reported them per study. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); three RCTs and two quasi-RCTs. Four trials compared a laxative with placebo; one compared a laxative plus a bulking agent versus the same laxative alone, in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported, and four of the five trials were published over 40 years ago. We judged the risk of bias to be unclear for most domains. Overall, we found a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placebo We included four trials in this comparison. Two of the trials examined the effects of laxatives that are no longer used; one has been found to have carcinogenic properties (Danthron), and the other is not recommended for lactating women (Bisoxatin acetate); therefore, we did not include their results in our main findings. None of the trials included in this comparison assessed our primary outcomes: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, or quality of life; or many of our secondary outcomes. A laxative (senna) may increase the number of women having their first bowel movement within 24 hours after delivery (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day one after delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence); may reduce the number of women having their first bowel movement on day two (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and day three (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day four after delivery (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence), but some of the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse effects were poorly reported. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the laxative (senna) may increase the number of women experiencing abdominal cramps (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19; 1 trial, 471 women). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that laxatives taken by the mother may have little or no effect on loose stools in the baby (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41; 1 trial, 281 babies); or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82; 1 trial, 281 babies). Laxative plus bulking agent versus laxative only Very low-certainty evidence from one trial (147 women) suggests no evidence of a difference between these two groups of women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; only median and range data were reported. The trial also reported no evidence of a difference in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported), but did not report on quality of life. Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range); very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two groups. A laxative plus bulking agent may increase the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during the first 10 days postpartum (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.23; 1 trial, 147 women; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on babies, or many of our secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for preventing postpartum constipation. The evidence in this review was assessed as low to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, indirectness and imprecision. We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo, and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Further, rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials should assess educational and behavioural interventions, and positions that enhance defecation. They should report on the primary outcomes from this review: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention, such as: nausea or vomiting, pain, and flatus.

Pre- and in-service training of health care workers on immunization data management in LMICs: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) are recognized as one of the cornerstones and drivers of health interventions. Roles such as documentation of patient care, data management, analysing, interpreting and appropriate use of data are key to ending vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). However, there is a great deal of uncertainty and concerns about HCPs' skills and competencies regarding immunization data handling and the importance of data use for improving service delivery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Questions about the suitability and relevance of the contents of training curriculum, appropriateness of platforms through which training is delivered and the impact of such training on immunization data handling competencies and service delivery remain a source of concern. This review identified and assessed published studies that report on pre- and in-service training with a focus on HCPs' competencies and skills to manage immunization data in LMICs. METHODS: An electronic search of six online databases was performed, in addition to websites of the WHO, Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), Oxfam International, Save the Children, Community Health Workers Central (CHW Central), UNAIDS and UNICEF. Using appropriate keywords, MeSH terms and selection procedure, 12 articles published between January 1980 and May 2019 on pre- and in-service training of HCPs, interventions geared towards standardized data collection procedures, data documentation and management of immunization data in LMICs, including curriculum reviews, were considered for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2705 identified references, only 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. The review provides evidence that shows that combined and multifaceted training interventions could help improve HCPs' knowledge, skills and competency on immunization data management. It further suggests that offering the right training to HCPs and sustaining standard immunization data management is hampered in LMICs by limited or/lack of training resources. CONCLUSION: Pre-service training is fundamental in the skills' acquisition of HCPs; however, they require additional in-service training and supportive supervision to function effectively in managing immunization data tasks. Continuous capacity development in immunization data-management competencies such as data collection, analysis, interpretation, synthesis and data use should be strengthened at all levels of the health system. Furthermore, there is a need for periodic review of the immunization-training curriculum in health training institutions, capacity development and retraining tutors on the current trends in immunization data management.

Interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake is usually encouraged, although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation. The effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation needs to be ascertained. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), Stellenbosch University database, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 April 2015) and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo or no intervention. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions).We included quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis only where there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); four compared a laxative with placebo and one compared a laxative alone versus the same laxative plus a bulking agent in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported and risk of bias was unclear for most domains. Overall, there was a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placeboNone of the four trials included in this comparison assessed any of our pre-specified primary outcomes (pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation or changes in quality of life).All four trials reported time to first bowel movement (not pre-specified in our protocol). In one trial, more women in the laxative group had their first bowel movement less than 24 hours after delivery compared to women in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75, 471 women). Individual trials also reported inconsistent results for days one, two and three after delivery. Pooled results of two trials showed that fewer women in the laxative group were having their first bowel movement at day four compared with controls (average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61, 671 women).Regarding secondary outcomes, no trials reported on stool consistency using the Bristol stool form scale orrelief of abdominal pain/discomfort . One trial reported the number of women having loose or watery stools and there were more women who experienced this in the laxative group compared to the placebo group (RR 26.96, 95% CI 3.81 to 191.03, 106 women). One trial found no clear difference in the number of enemas between groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.05, 244 women). One trial reported more women having more than two bowel movements per day in the laxative compared to the placebo group (RR 26.02, 95% CI 1.59 to 426.73, 106 women). Adverse effects were poorly reported; two trials reported the number of women having abdominal cramps, but their results could not be pooled in a meta-analysis due to substantial statistical heterogeneity. In one trial, more women in the laxative group had abdominal cramps compared to the placebo group (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19, 471 women), while the other trial showed no difference between groups (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20, 200 women). With regards to adverse effects of the intervention on the baby , one trial found no difference in the incidence of loose stools (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41, 281 women) or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82, 281 women) between the two groups. Laxative versus laxative plus bulking agentOnly one trial was included in this comparison and reported on pain or straining on defecation in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; there was no reported difference between groups (median (range) data only). No difference was reported in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported) and the outcome changes in quality of life was not mentioned.Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range) with no difference between the two groups. In terms of adverse effects , women in the laxative plus stool-bulking group were reported to be at a greater risk of faecal incontinence during the immediate postpartum period (median (range) data only). However the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during first 10 days postpartum was reported with no clear difference between the two groups (14/77 (18.2%) versus 23/70 (32.9%), RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, 147 women). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on the babies.The trial reported none of the following pre-specified secondary outcomes: stool consistency using Bristol stool form scale , use of alternative products , laxative agents , enemas , relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and stool frequency . AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Results from trials were inconsistent and there is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives.Further rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials assessing educational and behavioural interventions and positions that enhance defecation are also needed. Future trials should report on the following important outcomes: pain or straining on defecation; incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention such as: nausea or vomiting, pain and flatus.

Interventions for treating postpartum constipation.

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a functional bowel disorder that can reduce quality of life in the puerperium period. The diagnosis of postpartum constipation is both subjective and objective. It is characterised by symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, hard lumpy stools and a sense of incomplete bowel evacuation. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and hematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Although a high fibre diet and increased fluid intake is encouraged to assist defecation in the puerperium, pain-relieving drugs and laxatives are common drugs of choice to alleviate constipation. However, the effectiveness and safety of laxatives on the nursing mother need to be ascertained. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for treating postpartum constipation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 March 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), the ProQuest database, Stellenbosch University database and Google Scholar (28 March 2014). We also searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies identified by the search, reviewed articles for relevant trials and contacted experts to identify any additional published or unpublished trials (10 April 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of postpartum constipation to another intervention, placebo or no intervention.Interventions could include laxatives, surgery, as well as educational and behavioural interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies using pre-designed eligibility inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We did not identify any studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded nine studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We could not make explicit conclusions on interventions for treating postpartum constipation because we found no studies for inclusion in this review. Rigorous and well-conducted large randomised controlled trials aimed at treating postpartum women diagnosed with constipation would be beneficial. These trials should also address the criteria for administering the intervention (time and stage of a diagnosis of postpartum constipation), and the safety and effectiveness of such interventions.