Integrating international policy standards in the implementation of postnatal care: a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: International legal and political documents can assist policy-makers and programme managers in countries to create an enabling environment to promote maternal and newborn health. This review aimed to map and summarise international legal and political documents relevant to the implementation of the WHO recommendations on maternal and newborn care for a positive postnatal experience. METHODS: Rapid review of relevant international legal and political documents, including legal and political commitments (declarations, resolutions and treaties) and interpretations (general comments, recommendations from United Nations human rights treaty bodies, joint United Nations statements). Documents were mapped to the domains presented in the WHO postnatal care (PNC) recommendations; relating to maternal care, newborn care, and health systems and health promotion interventions, and by type of human right implied and/or stated in the documents. RESULTS: Twenty-nine documents describing international legal and political commitments and interpretations were mapped, out of 45 documents captured. These 29 documents, published or entered into force between 1944 and 2020, contained content relevant to most of the domains of the PNC recommendations, most prominently the domains of breastfeeding and health systems interventions and service delivery arrangements. The most frequently mapped human rights were the right to health and the right to social security. CONCLUSION: Existing international legal and political documents can inform and encourage policy and programme development at the country level, to create an enabling environment during the postnatal period and thereby support the provision and uptake of PNC and improve health outcomes for women, newborns, children and families. Governments and civil society organisations should be aware of these documents to support efforts to protect and promote maternal and newborn health.

My Baby's Movements: An assessment of the effectiveness of the My Baby's Movements phone program in reducing late-gestation stillbirth rates.

BACKGROUND: Delayed reporting of decreased fetal movements (DFM) could represent a missed opportunity to prevent stillbirth. Mobile phone applications (apps) have the potential to improve maternal awareness and reporting of DFM and contribute to stillbirth prevention. AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of the My Baby's Movements (MBM) app on late-gestation stillbirth rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MBM trial evaluated a multifaceted fetal movements awareness package across 26 maternity services in Australia and New Zealand between 2016 and 2019. In this secondary analysis, generalised linear mixed models were used to compare rates of late-gestation stillbirth, obstetric interventions, and neonatal outcomes between app users and non-app users including calendar time, cluster, primiparity and other potential confounders as fixed effects, and hospital as a random effect. RESULTS: Of 140 052 women included, app users comprised 9.8% (n = 13 780). The stillbirth rate was not significantly lower among app users (1.67/1000 vs 2.29/1000) (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.79; 95% CI 0.51-1.23). App users were less likely to have a preterm birth (aOR 0.81; 0.75-0.88) or a composite adverse neonatal outcome (aOR 0.87; 0.81-0.93); however, they had higher rates of induction of labour (IOL) (aOR 1.27; 1.22-1.32) and early term birth (aOR 1.08; 1.04-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The MBM app had low uptake and its use was not associated with stillbirth rates but was associated with some neonatal benefit, and higher rates of IOL and early term birth. Use and acceptability of tools designed to promote fetal movement awareness is an important knowledge gap. The implications of increased IOL and early term births warrant consideration in future studies.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study).

INTRODUCTION: Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087748.

Evaluation of Movements Matter: A social media and hospital-based campaign aimed at raising awareness of decreased fetal movements.

BACKGROUND: The Movements Matter campaign aimed to raise awareness of decreased fetal movements (DFM) among pregnant women and inform clinicians of best practice management. AIM: To conduct a process evaluation of campaign implementation, and an impact evaluation of the campaign's effects on knowledge and experiences of pregnant women, and attitudes and practices of clinicians in relation to DFM. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional before-after design. Pregnant women and clinicians were sampled at five hospitals. Women were surveyed about their knowledge of DFM, and actions to take if they noticed DFM. Clinicians were asked about their current practices and attitudes about informing women about DFM. Logistic regression was used to calculate campaign effects on outcome measures. RESULTS: The Movements Matter campaign reached 653 262 people on social media, as well as being covered on news media and popular women's websites. The evaluation surveyed 1142 pregnant women pre-campaign and 473 post-campaign, and 372 clinicians pre-campaign and 149 post-campaign. Following the campaign, women were more likely to be aware that babies should move the same amount in late pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.81, 95% CI 1.43-2.27), and were more likely to contact their health service immediately if their baby was moving less (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22-1.91). Clinicians were 2.84 times more likely to recommend women should come in for assessment if they experience DFM (95% CI 1.35-5.97). CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation has shown that a campaign using social media and in-hospital education materials led to some increases in knowledge about fetal movements among pregnant women.

Making every birth count: Outcomes of a perinatal mortality audit program.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth rates have shown little improvement for two decades in Australia. Perinatal mortality audit is key to prevention, but the literature suggests that implementation is suboptimal. AIM: To determine the proportion of perinatal deaths which are associated with contributing factors relating to care in Queensland, Australia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective audit of perinatal deaths ≥ 34 weeks gestation by the Health Department in Queensland was undertaken. Cases and demographic information were obtained from the Queensland Perinatal Data Collection. A multidisciplinary panel used the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) perinatal mortality audit guidelines to classify the cause of death and to identify contributing factors. Contributing factors were classified as 'insignificant', 'possible', or 'significant'. RESULTS: From 1 January to 31 December 2018, 65 deaths (56 stillbirths and nine neonatal deaths) were eligible and audited. Most deaths were classified as unexplained (51.8% of stillbirths). Contributing factors were identified in 46 (71%) deaths: six insignificant (all stillbirths), 20 possibly related to outcome (17 stillbirths), and 20 significantly (16 stillbirths). Areas for practice improvements mainly related to the care for women with risk factors for stillbirth, especially antenatal care. The PSANZ guidelines were applied and enabled a systematic approach. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of late gestation perinatal deaths are associated with contributing factors relating to care. Improving antenatal care for women with risk factors for stillbirth is a priority. Perinatal mortality audit is a valuable step in stillbirth prevention and the PSANZ guidelines allow a systematic approach to aid implementation and reporting.

Parents' experiences of care offered after stillbirth: An international online survey of high and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth, the death of a baby before birth, is associated with significant psychological and social consequences that can be mitigated by respectful and supportive bereavement care. The absence of high-level evidence to support the broad scope of perinatal bereavement practices means that offering a range of options identified as valued by parents has become an important indicator of care quality. This study aimed to describe bereavement care practices offered to parents across different high-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: An online survey of parents of stillborn babies was conducted between December 2014 and February 2015. Frequencies of nine practices were compared between high-income and middle-income countries. Differences in proportions of reported practices and their associated odds ratios were calculated to compare high-income and middle-income countries. RESULTS: Over three thousand parents (3041) with a self-reported stillbirth in the preceding five years from 40 countries responded. Fifteen countries had atleast 40 responses. Significant differences in the prevalence of offering nine bereavement care practices were reported by women in high-income countries (HICs) compared with women in middle-income countries (MICs). All nine practices were reported to occur significantly more frequently by women in HICs, including opportunity to see and hold their baby (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.9). The widespread occurrence of all nine practices was reported only for The Netherlands. CONCLUSIONS: Bereavement care after stillbirth varies between countries. Future research should look at why these differences occur, their impact on parents, and whether differences should be addressed, particularly how to support effective communication, decision-making, and follow-up care.

Stillbirth in Australia 1: The road to now: Two decades of stillbirth research and advocacy in Australia.

Stillbirth is a major public health problem with an enormous mortality burden and psychosocial impact on parents, families and the wider community both globally and in Australia. In 2015, Australia's late gestation stillbirth rate was over 30% higher than that of the best-performing countries globally, highlighting the urgent need for action. We present an overview of the foundations which led to the establishment of Australia's NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth (Stillbirth CRE) in 2017 and highlight key activities in the following areas: Opportunities to expand and improve collaborations between research teams; Supporting the conduct and development of innovative, high quality, collaborative research that incorporates a strong parent voice; Promoting effective translation of research into health policy and/or practice; and the Regional and global work of the Stillbirth CRE. We highlight the first-ever Senate Inquiry into Stillbirth in Australia in 2018. These events ultimately led to the development of a National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan for Australia with the aims of reducing stillbirth rates by 20% over the next five years, reducing the disparity in stillbirth rates between advantaged and disadvantaged communities, and improving care for all families who experience this loss.

Research priorities and potential methodologies to inform care in subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth: a web-based survey of healthcare professionals, researchers and advocates.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities and explore potential methodologies to inform care in subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. DESIGN: Web-based survey by invitation. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary panel of 79 individuals involved in stillbirth research, clinical practice and/or advocacy from the international stillbirth research community (response rate=64%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Importance of 16 candidate research topics and perceived utility and appropriateness of randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology for the evaluation of four pertinent interventions: (1) medical therapies for placental dysfunction (eg, antiplatelet agents); (2) additional antepartum fetal surveillance (eg, ultrasound scans); (3) early planned birth from 37 weeks' gestation and (4) different forms of psychosocial support for parents and families. RESULTS: Candidate research topics that were rated as 'important and urgent' by the greatest proportion of participants were: medical therapies for placental dysfunction (81%); additional antepartum fetal surveillance (80%); the development of a core outcomes dataset for stillbirth research (79%); targeted antenatal interventions for women who have risk factors (79%) and calculating the risk of recurrent stillbirth according to specific causes of index stillbirth (79%). Whether RCT methodologies were considered appropriate for the four selected interventions varied depending on the criterion being assessed. For example, while 72% of respondents felt that RCTs were 'the best way' to evaluate medical therapies for placental dysfunction, fewer respondents (63%) deemed RCTs ethical in this context, and approximately only half (52%) felt that such RCTs were feasible. There was considerably less support for RCT methodology for the evaluation of different forms of psychosocial support, which was reinforced by free-text comments. CONCLUSIONS: Five priority research topics to inform care in pregnancies after stillbirth were identified. There was support for RCTs in this area, but the panel remained divided on the ethics and feasibility of such trials. Engagement with parents and families is a critical next step.

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.

Interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide variety of investigations are available, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal approach. Given their cost and potential to add further emotional burden to parents, there is a need to systematically assess the effect of these interventions on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and on rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different tests, protocols or guidelines for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 May 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. We planned to include studies published as abstract only, provided there was sufficient information to allow us to assess study eligibility. We planned to exclude cross-over trials.Participants included parents (including mothers, fathers, and partners) who had experienced a stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or greater.This review focused on interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Such interventions are likely to be diverse, but could include:* review of maternal and family history, and current pregnancy and birth history;* clinical history of present illness;* maternal investigations (such as ultrasound, amniocentesis, antibody screening, etc.);* examination of the stillborn baby (including full autopsy, partial autopsy or noninvasive components, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT) scanning, and radiography);* umbilical cord examination;* placental examination including histopathology (microscopic examination of placental tissue); and* verbal autopsy (interviews with care providers and support people to ascertain causes, without examination of the baby).We planned to include trials assessing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth, compared with the absence of a test, protocol or guideline, or usual care (further details are presented in the Background, see Description of the intervention).We also planned to include trials comparing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth with another, for example, the use of a limited investigation protocol compared with a comprehensive investigation protocol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility independently. MAIN RESULTS: We excluded five studies that were not RCTs. There were no eligible trials for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of RCT evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Seeking to determine the causes of stillbirth is an essential component of quality maternity care, but it remains unclear what impact these interventions have on the psychosocial outcomes of parents and families, the rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth, and the care and management of subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth. Due to the absence of trials, this review is unable to inform clinical practice regarding the investigation of stillbirths, and the specific investigations that would determine the causes.Future RCTs addressing this research question would be beneficial, but the settings in which the trials take place, and their design, need to be given careful consideration. Trials need to be conducted with the utmost care and consideration for the needs, concerns, and values of parents and families. Assessment of longer-term psychosocial variables, economic costs to health services, and effects on subsequent pregnancy care and outcomes should also be considered in any future trials.

Classification of causes and associated conditions for stillbirths and neonatal deaths.

Accurate and consistent classification of causes and associated conditions for perinatal deaths is essential to inform strategies to reduce the five million which occur globally each year. With the majority of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), their needs must be prioritised. The aim of this paper is to review the classification of perinatal death, the contemporary classification systems including the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases - Perinatal Mortality (ICD-PM), and next steps. During the period from 2009 to 2014, a total of 81 new or modified classification systems were identified with the majority developed in high-income countries (HICs). Structure, definitions and rules and therefore data on causes vary widely and implementation is suboptimal. Whereas system testing is limited, none appears ideal. Several systems result in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths, prompting HICs to use more detailed systems that require data unavailable in low-income countries. Some systems appear to perform well across these different settings. ICD-PM addresses some shortcomings of ICD-10 for perinatal deaths, but important limitations remain, especially for stillbirths. A global approach to classification is needed and seems feasible. The new ICD-PM system is an important step forward and improvements will be enhanced by wide-scale use and evaluation. Implementation requires national-level support and dedicated resources. Future research should focus on implementation strategies and evaluation methods, defining placental pathologies, and ways to engage parents in the process.

Evaluation of an international educational programme for health care professionals on best practice in the management of a perinatal death: IMproving Perinatal mortality Review and Outcomes Via Education (IMPROVE).

BACKGROUND: Stillbirths and neonatal deaths are devastating events for both parents and clinicians and are global public health concerns. Careful clinical management after these deaths is required, including appropriate investigation and assessment to determine cause (s) to prevent future losses, and to improve bereavement care for families. An educational programme for health care professionals working in maternal and child health has been designed to address these needs according to the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand Guideline for Perinatal Mortality: IMproving Perinatal mortality Review and Outcomes Via Education (IMPROVE). The programme has a major focus on stillbirth and is delivered as six interactive skills-based stations. We aimed to determine participants' pre- and post-programme knowledge of and confidence in the management of perinatal deaths, along with satisfaction with the programme. We also aimed to determine suitability for international use. METHODS: The IMPROVE programme was delivered to health professionals in maternity hospitals in all seven Australian states and territories and modified for use internationally with piloting in Vietnam, Fiji, and the Netherlands (with the assistance of the International Stillbirth Alliance, ISA). Modifications were made to programme materials in consultation with local teams and included translation for the Vietnam programme. Participants completed pre- and post-programme evaluation questionnaires on knowledge and confidence on six key components of perinatal death management as well as a satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: Over the period May 2012 to May 2015, 30 IMPROVE workshops were conducted, including 26 with 758 participants in Australia and four with 136 participants internationally. Evaluations showed a significant improvement between pre- and post-programme knowledge and confidence in all six stations and overall, and a high degree of satisfaction in all settings. CONCLUSIONS: The IMPROVE programme has been well received in Australia and in three different international settings and is now being made available through ISA. Future research is required to determine whether the immediate improvements in knowledge are sustained with less causes of death being classified as unknown, changes in clinical practice and improvement in parents' experiences with care. The suitability for this programme in low-income countries also needs to be established.

eRegistries: indicators for the WHO Essential Interventions for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health registries - eRegistries - can systematically collect relevant information at the point of care for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH). However, a suite of process and outcome indicators is needed for RMNCH to monitor care and to ensure comparability between settings. Here we report on the assessment of current global indicators and the development of a suite of indicators for the WHO Essential Interventions for use at various levels of health care systems nationally and globally. METHODS: Currently available indicators from both household and facility surveys were collated through publicly available global databases and respective survey instruments. We then developed a suite of potential indicators and associated data points for the 45 WHO Essential Interventions spanning preconception to newborn care. Four types of performance indicators were identified (where applicable): process (i.e. coverage) and outcome (i.e. impact) indicators for both screening and treatment/prevention. Indicators were evaluated by an international expert panel against the eRegistries indicator evaluation criteria and further refined based on feedback by the eRegistries technical team. RESULTS: Of the 45 WHO Essential Interventions, only 16 were addressed in any of the household survey data available. A set of 216 potential indicators was developed. These indicators were generally evaluated favourably by the panel, but difficulties in data ascertainment, including for outcome measures of cause-specific morbidity and mortality, were frequently reported as barriers to the feasibility of indicators. Indicators were refined based on feedback, culminating in the final list of 193 total unique indicators: 93 for preconception and antenatal care; 53 for childbirth and postpartum care; and 47 for newborn and small and ill baby care. CONCLUSIONS: Large gaps exist in the availability of information currently collected to support the implementation of the WHO Essential Interventions. The development of this suite of indicators can be used to support the implementation of eRegistries and other data platforms, to ensure that data are utilised to support evidence-based practice, facilitate measurement and accountability, and improve maternal and child health outcomes.

Seeking order amidst chaos: a systematic review of classification systems for causes of stillbirth and neonatal death, 2009-2014.

BACKGROUND: Each year, about 5.3 million babies die in the perinatal period. Understanding of causes of death is critical for prevention, yet there is no globally acceptable classification system. Instead, many disparate systems have been developed and used. We aimed to identify all systems used or created between 2009 and 2014, with their key features, including extent of alignment with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and variation in features by region, to inform the World Health Organization's development of a new global approach to classifying perinatal deaths. METHODS: A systematic literature review (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and PubMed) identified published and unpublished studies and national reports describing new classification systems or modifications of existing systems for causes of perinatal death, or that used or tested such systems, between 2009 and 2014. Studies reporting ICD use only were excluded. Data were independently double-extracted (except from non-English publications). Subgroup analyses explored variation by extent and region. RESULTS: Eighty-one systems were identified as new, modifications of existing systems, or having been used between 2009 and 2014, with an average of ten systems created/modified each year. Systems had widely varying characteristics: (i) comprehensiveness (40 systems classified both stillbirths and neonatal deaths); (ii) extent of use (systems were created in 28 countries and used in 40; 17 were created for national use; 27 were widely used); (iii) accessibility (three systems available in e-format); (iv) underlying cause of death (64 systems required a single cause of death); (v) reliability (10 systems tested for reliability, with overall Kappa scores ranging from .35-.93); and (vi) ICD alignment (17 systems used ICD codes). Regional databases were not searched, so system numbers may be underestimated. Some non-differential misclassification of systems was possible. CONCLUSIONS: The plethora of systems in use, and continuing system development, hamper international efforts to improve understanding of causes of death. Recognition of the features of currently used systems, combined with a better understanding of the drivers of continued system creation, may help the development of a truly effective global system.

Classification systems for causes of stillbirth and neonatal death, 2009-2014: an assessment of alignment with characteristics for an effective global system.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the burden of 5.3 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths annually, an understanding of causes of deaths is critical. A systematic review identified 81 systems for classification of causes of stillbirth (SB) and neonatal death (NND) between 2009 and 2014. The large number of systems hampers efforts to understand and prevent these deaths. This study aimed to assess the alignment of current classification systems with expert-identified characteristics for a globally effective classification system. METHODS: Eighty-one classification systems were assessed for alignment with 17 characteristics previously identified through expert consensus as necessary for an effective global system. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Systems were assessed against each characteristic and weighted and unweighted scores assigned to each. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by system use, setting, type of death included and type of characteristic. RESULTS: None of the 81 systems were aligned with more than 9 of the 17 characteristics; most (82 %) were aligned with four or fewer. On average, systems were aligned with 19 % of characteristics. The most aligned system (Frøen 2009-Codac) still had an unweighted score of only 9/17. Alignment with individual characteristics ranged from 0 to 49 %. Alignment was somewhat higher for widely used as compared to less used systems (22 % v 17 %), systems used only in high income countries as compared to only in low and middle income countries (20 % vs 16 %), and systems including both SB and NND (23 %) as compared to NND-only (15 %) and SB-only systems (13 %). Alignment was higher with characteristics assessing structure (23 %) than function (15 %). CONCLUSIONS: There is an unmet need for a system exhibiting all the characteristics of a globally effective system as defined by experts in the use of systems, as none of the 81 contemporary classification systems assessed was highly aligned with these characteristics. A particular concern in terms of global effectiveness is the lack of alignment with "ease of use" among all systems, including even the most-aligned. A system which meets the needs of users would have the potential to become the first truly globally effective classification system.

Characteristics of a global classification system for perinatal deaths: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the global burden of perinatal deaths, there is currently no single, globally-acceptable classification system for perinatal deaths. Instead, multiple, disparate systems are in use world-wide. This inconsistency hinders accurate estimates of causes of death and impedes effective prevention strategies. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is developing a globally-acceptable classification approach for perinatal deaths. To inform this work, we sought to establish a consensus on the important characteristics of such a system. METHODS: A group of international experts in the classification of perinatal deaths were identified and invited to join an expert panel to develop a list of important characteristics of a quality global classification system for perinatal death. A Delphi consensus methodology was used to reach agreement. Three rounds of consultation were undertaken using a purpose built on-line survey. Round one sought suggested characteristics for subsequent scoring and selection in rounds two and three. RESULTS: The panel of experts agreed on a total of 17 important characteristics for a globally-acceptable perinatal death classification system. Of these, 10 relate to the structural design of the system and 7 relate to the functional aspects and use of the system. CONCLUSION: This study serves as formative work towards the development of a globally-acceptable approach for the classification of the causes of perinatal deaths. The list of functional and structural characteristics identified should be taken into consideration when designing and developing such a system.

Stillbirths: recall to action in high-income countries.

Variation in stillbirth rates across high-income countries and large equity gaps within high-income countries persist. If all high-income countries achieved stillbirth rates equal to the best performing countries, 19,439 late gestation (28 weeks or more) stillbirths could have been avoided in 2015. The proportion of unexplained stillbirths is high and can be addressed through improvements in data collection, investigation, and classification, and with a better understanding of causal pathways. Substandard care contributes to 20-30% of all stillbirths and the contribution is even higher for late gestation intrapartum stillbirths. National perinatal mortality audit programmes need to be implemented in all high-income countries. The need to reduce stigma and fatalism related to stillbirth and to improve bereavement care are also clear, persisting priorities for action. In high-income countries, a woman living under adverse socioeconomic circumstances has twice the risk of having a stillborn child when compared to her more advantaged counterparts. Programmes at community and country level need to improve health in disadvantaged families to address these inequities.

Stillbirths: economic and psychosocial consequences.

Despite the frequency of stillbirths, the subsequent implications are overlooked and underappreciated. We present findings from comprehensive, systematic literature reviews, and new analyses of published and unpublished data, to establish the effect of stillbirth on parents, families, health-care providers, and societies worldwide. Data for direct costs of this event are sparse but suggest that a stillbirth needs more resources than a livebirth, both in the perinatal period and in additional surveillance during subsequent pregnancies. Indirect and intangible costs of stillbirth are extensive and are usually met by families alone. This issue is particularly onerous for those with few resources. Negative effects, particularly on parental mental health, might be moderated by empathic attitudes of care providers and tailored interventions. The value of the baby, as well as the associated costs for parents, families, care providers, communities, and society, should be considered to prevent stillbirths and reduce associated morbidity.