Neonatal mortality in NHS maternity units by timing and mode of birth: a retrospective linked cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare neonatal mortality in English hospitals by time of day and day of the week according to care pathway. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort linking birth registration, birth notification and hospital episode data. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 6 054 536 liveborn singleton births from 2005 to 2014 in NHS maternity units in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neonatal mortality. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders, there was no significant difference in the odds of neonatal mortality attributed to asphyxia, anoxia or trauma outside of working hours compared with working hours for spontaneous births or instrumental births. Stratification of emergency caesareans by onset of labour showed no difference in mortality by birth timing for emergency caesareans with spontaneous or induced onset of labour. Higher odds of neonatal mortality attributed to asphyxia, anoxia or trauma out of hours for emergency caesareans without labour translated to a small absolute difference in mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent 'weekend effect' may result from deaths among the relatively small numbers of babies who were coded as born by emergency caesarean section without labour outside normal working hours. Further research should investigate the potential contribution of care-seeking and community-based factors as well as the adequacy of staffing for managing these relatively unusual emergencies.

Maternity service reconfigurations for intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing shortages: modelling of low-risk births in England.

INTRODUCTION: Choice of birth setting is important and it is valuable to know how reconfiguring available settings may affect midwifery staffing needs. COVID-19-related health system pressures have meant restriction of community births. We aimed to model the potential of service reconfigurations to offset midwifery staffing shortages. METHODS: We adapted the Birthrate Plus method to develop a tool that models the effects on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing requirements of changing service configurations for low-risk births. We tested our tool on two hypothetical model trusts with different baseline configurations of hospital and community low-risk birth services, representing those most common in England, and applied it to scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages of 15%, 25% and 35%. In scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages above 15%, we modelled restricting community births in line with professional guidance on COVID-19 service reconfiguration. For shortages of 15%, we modelled expanding community births per the target of the Maternity Transformation programme. RESULTS: Expanding community births with 15% shortages required 0.0 and 0.1 whole-time equivalent more midwives in our respective trusts compared with baseline, representing 0% and 0.1% of overall staffing requirements net of shortages. Restricting home births with 25% shortages reduced midwifery staffing need by 0.1 midwives (-0.1% of staffing) and 0.3 midwives (-0.3%). Suspending community births with 35% shortages meant changes of -0.3 midwives (-0.3%) and -0.5 midwives (-0.5%) in the two trusts. Sensitivity analysis showed that our results were robust even under extreme assumptions. CONCLUSION: Our model found that reconfiguring maternity services in response to shortages has a negligible effect on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing needs. Given this, with lower degrees of shortage, managers can consider increasing community birth options where there is demand. In situations of severe shortage, reconfiguration cannot recoup the shortage and managers must decide how to modify service arrangements.

Tracking aid for global health goals: a systematic comparison of four approaches applied to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health.

BACKGROUND: Four initiatives have estimated the value of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH): Countdown to 2015, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), the Muskoka Initiative, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) policy marker. We aimed to compare the estimates, trends, and methodologies of these initiatives and make recommendations for future aid tracking. METHODS: We compared estimates of aid for RMNCH from the four initiatives for all years available at the time of our analysis (1990-2016). We used publicly available datasets for IHME and Countdown. We produced estimates for Muskoka and the OECD policy marker using data in the OECD Creditor Reporting System. We sought to explain differences in estimates by critically comparing the methods used by each approach to identify and analyse aid, and quantifying the effects of these choices on estimates. FINDINGS: All four approaches indicated substantial increases over time in global aid for RMNCH, but estimates of aid amounts and year-on-year trends differed substantially, especially for individual donors and recipient countries. Muskoka (US$ 13·0 billion in 2013, constant 2015 US$) and Countdown's RMNCH estimates ($13·1 billion in 2013) tended to be the highest and most similar, although they often indicated different year-on-year trends. IHME produced lower estimates ($10·8 billion in 2013), which often indicated different trends from the other approaches. The OECD policy marker produced by far the lowest estimates ($2·0 billion in 2013) because half of bilateral donors did not report on it consistently and those who did tended to apply it narrowly. Estimates differed across approaches primarily because of differences in methods for distinguishing aid for RMNCH from aid for other purposes; adjustments for inflation, exchange rates, and under-reporting; whether donors were credited for their support to multilateral institutions; and the handling of aid to unspecified recipients. INTERPRETATION: The four approaches are likely to lead to different conclusions about whether individual donors and recipient countries have fulfilled their obligations and commitments and whether aid was sufficient, targeted to countries with greater need, or effective. We recommend that efforts to track aid for the Sustainable Development Goals reflect their multisectoral and interconnected nature and make analytical choices that are appropriate to their objectives, recognising the trade-offs between simplicity, timeliness, precision, accuracy, efficiency, flexibility, replicability, and the incentives that different metrics create for donors. FUNDING: Subgrant OPP1058954 from the US Fund for UNICEF under their Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Donor funding for family planning: levels and trends between 2003 and 2013.

The International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 set targets for donor funding to support family planning programmes, and recent initiatives such as FP2020 have renewed focus on the need for adequate funding to rights-based family planning. Disbursements supporting family planning disaggregated by donor, recipient country and year are not available for recent years. We estimate international donor funding for family planning in 2003-13, the period covering the introduction of reproductive health targets to the Millennium Development Goals and up to the beginning of FP2020, and compare funding to unmet need for family planning in recipient countries. We used the dataset of donor disbursements to support reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health developed by the Countdown to 2015 based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Creditor Reporting System. We assessed levels and trends in disbursements supporting family planning in the period 2003-13 and compared this to unmet need for family planning. Between 2003 and 2013, disbursements supporting family planning rose from under $400 m prior to 2008 to $886 m in 2013. More than two thirds of disbursements came from the USA. There was substantial year-on-year variation in disbursement value to some recipient countries. Disbursements have become more concentrated among recipient countries with higher national levels of unmet need for family planning. Annual disbursements of donor funding supporting family planning are far short of projected and estimated levels necessary to address unmet need for family planning. The reimposition of the US Global Gag Rule will precipitate an even greater shortfall if other donors and recipient countries do not find substantial alternative sources of funding.

Trends In The Alignment And Harmonization Of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, And Child Health Funding, 2008-13.

Donor financing to low- and middle-income countries for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health increased substantially from 2008 to 2013. However, increased spending by donors might not improve outcomes, if funds are delivered in ways that undermine countries' public financial management systems and incur high transaction costs for project implementation. We combined quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the quality of funding for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health globally and in Tanzania, based on two principles of aid effectiveness: the alignment of donor financing with the recipient country's public health financial management systems, and donor harmonization for coordinated, transparent, and collectively effective actions. We found that alignment of donor financing deteriorated throughout the period, with the proportion of funds channeled through governments decreasing from 47 percent to 39 percent. Tanzania-based donors attributed the change to the pressure donors were under to achieve and show results. Donor harmonization was low overall and remained relatively constant, although it increased in sub-Saharan Africa and decreased in South Asia. Bilateral funding agencies were the most harmonized donors. We recommend that future assessments of Sustainable Development Goals financing include measures of harmonization and alignment of funding.

Countdown to 2015: an analysis of donor funding for prenatal and neonatal health, 2003-2013.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, 5.3 million babies died in the third trimester of pregnancy and first month following birth. Progress in reducing neonatal mortality and stillbirth rates has lagged behind the substantial progress in reducing postneonatal and maternal mortality rates. The benefits to prenatal and neonatal health (PNH) from maternal and child health investments cannot be assumed. METHODS: We analysed donor funding for PNH over the period 2003-2013. We used an exhaustive key term search followed by manual review and classification to identify official development assistance and private grant (ODA+) disbursement records in the Countdown to 2015 ODA+ Database. RESULTS: The value of ODA+ mentioning PNH or an activity that would directly benefit PNH increased from $105 million in 2003 to $1465 million in 2013, but this included a 3% decline between 2012 and 2013. Projects exclusively benefitting PNH reached just $6 million in 2013. Records mentioning PNH accounted for 3% of the $2708 million disbursed in 2003 for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) and increased to 13% of the $9287 million disbursed for MNCH in 2013. In 11 years, only nine records ($6 million) mentioned stillbirth, miscarriage, or the fetus, although the two leading infectious causes of stillbirth were mentioned in records worth $832 million. The USA disbursed the most ODA+ mentioning PNH ($2848 million, 40% of the total) and Unicef disbursed the most ODA+ exclusively benefitting PNH ($18 million, 30%). We found evidence that funding mentioning and exclusively benefitting PNH was targeted to countries with greater economic needs, but the evidence of targeting to health needs was weak and inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Newborn health rose substantially on the global agenda between 2003 and 2013, but prenatal health received minimal attention in donor funding decisions. Declines in 2013 and persistently low funding exclusively benefitting PNH indicate a need for caution and continued monitoring of donors' support for newborn health.

Developing a dataset to track aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health, 2003-2013.

We created a dataset to generate estimates of donor-reported 'official development assistance' and private grants (ODA+) to reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) by donor, recipient country and activity type over the period 2003-2013. We collected disbursement information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Creditor Reporting System (CRS) in January 2015. All 2.1 million records across all sectors were coded based on donor name, project title, short and long descriptions, and CRS code describing the purpose of the disbursement. We classified records according to the degree to which they would promote attainment of Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 (reproductive and sexual health, maternal and newborn health, and child health). We also classified records according to whether they supported prenatal and neonatal health (PNH). The dataset includes project funding as well as allocating shares of general budget support, health sector support and basket funding. The data can be used to analyse resource flows to RMNCH or to other purposes or beneficiaries of ODA+.

11 years of tracking aid to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health: estimates and analysis for 2003-13 from the Countdown to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Tracking aid flows helps to hold donors accountable and to compare the allocation of resources in relation to health need. With the use of data reported by donors in 2015, we provided estimates of official development assistance and grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (collectively termed ODA+) to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for 2013 and complete trends in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health support for the period 2003-13. METHODS: We coded and analysed financial disbursements to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to all recipient countries from all donors reporting to the creditor reporting system database for the year 2013. We also revisited disbursement records for the years 2003-08 and coded disbursements relating to reproductive and sexual health activities resulting in the Countdown dataset for 2003-13. We matched this dataset to the 2015 creditor reporting system dataset and coded any unmatched creditor reporting system records. We analysed trends in ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for the period 2003-13, trends in donor contributions, disbursements to recipient countries, and targeting to need. FINDINGS: Total ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health reached nearly US$14 billion in 2013, of which 48% supported child health ($6·8 billion), 34% supported reproductive and sexual health ($4·7 billion), and 18% maternal and newborn health ($2·5 billion). ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health increased by 225% in real terms over the period 2003-13. Child health received the most substantial increase in funding since 2003 (286%), followed by reproductive and sexual health (194%), and maternal and newborn health (164%). In 2013, bilateral donors disbursed 59% of all ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health, followed by global health initiatives (23%), and multilateral agencies (13%). Targeting of ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to countries with the greatest health need seems to have improved over time. INTERPRETATION: The increase in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health funding over the period 2003-13 is encouraging. Further increases in funding will be needed to accelerate maternal mortality reduction while keeping a high level of investment in sexual and reproductive health and in child health. FUNDING: Subgrant OPP1058954 from the US Fund for UNICEF under their Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.