Prenatal maternal stress was not associated with birthweight or gestational age at birth during COVID-19 restrictions in Australia: The BITTOC longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Various forms of prenatal maternal stress (PNMS) have been reported to increase risk for preterm birth and low birthweight. However, the associations between specific components of stress - namely objective hardship and subjective distress - and birth outcomes are not well understood. AIMS: Here, we aimed to determine the relationship between birthweight and gestational age at birth and specific prenatal factors (infant gender and COVID-19 pandemic-related objective hardship, subjective distress, change in diet), and to determine whether effects of hardship are moderated by maternal subjective distress, change in diet, or infant gender. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of the Birth in the Time of COVID (BITTOC study), women (N = 2285) who delivered in Australia during the pandemic were recruited online between August 2020 and February 2021. We assessed objective hardship and subjective distress related to the COVID pandemic and restrictions, and birth outcomes through questionnaires that were completed at recruitment and two months post-partum. Analyses included hierarchical multiple regressions. RESULTS: No associations between maternal objective hardship or subjective distress and gestational age at birth or birthweight were identified. Lower birthweight was significantly associated with female gender (adjusted ß = 0.083, P < 0.001) and with self-reported improvement in maternal diet (adjusted ß = 0.059, P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In a socioeconomically advantaged sample, neither objective hardship nor subjective distress related to COVID-19 were associated with birth outcomes. Further research is warranted to understand how other individual factors influence susceptibility to PNMS and how these findings are applicable to women with lower socioeconomic status.

Birthweight measurement processes and perceived value: qualitative research in one EN-BIRTH study hospital in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Globally an estimated 20.5 million liveborn babies are low birthweight (LBW) each year, weighing less than 2500 g. LBW babies have increased risk of mortality even beyond the neonatal period, with an ongoing risk of stunting and non-communicable diseases. LBW is a priority global health indicator. Now almost 80% of births are in facilities, yet birthweight data are lacking in most high-mortality burden countries and are of poor quality, notably with heaping especially on values ending in 00. We aimed to undertake qualitative research in a regional hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, observing birthweight weighing scales, exploring barriers and enablers to weighing at birth as well as perceived value of birthweight data to health workers, women and stakeholders. METHODS: Observations were undertaken on type of birthweight scale availability in hospital wards. In-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 21) were conducted with three groups: women in postnatal and kangaroo mother care wards, health workers involved in birthweight measurement and recording, and stakeholders involved in data aggregation in Temeke Hospital, Tanzania, a site in the EN-BIRTH study. An inductive thematic analysis was undertaken of translated interview transcripts. RESULTS: Of five wards that were expected to have scales, three had functional scales, and only one of the functional scales was digital. The labour ward weighed the most newborns using an analogue scale that was not consistently zeroed. Hospital birthweight data were aggregated monthly for reporting into the health management information system. Birthweight measurement was highly valued by all respondents, notably families and healthcare workers, and local use of data was considered an enabler. Perceived barriers to high quality birthweight data included: gaps in availability of precise weighing devices, adequate health workers and imprecise measurement practices. CONCLUSION: Birthweight measurement is valued by families and health workers. There are opportunities to close the gap between the percentage of babies born in facilities and the percentage accurately weighed at birth by providing accurate scales, improving skills training and increasing local use of data. More accurate birthweight data are vitally important for all babies and specifically to track progress in preventing and improving immediate and long-term care for low birthweight children.

Birthweight: EN-BIRTH multi-country validation study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate birthweight is critical to inform clinical care at the individual level and tracking progress towards national/global targets at the population level. Low birthweight (LBW) < 2500 g affects over 20.5 million newborns annually. However, data are lacking and may be affected by heaping. This paper evaluates birthweight measurement within the Every Newborn Birth Indicators Research Tracking in Hospitals (EN-BIRTH) study. METHODS: The EN-BIRTH study took place in five hospitals in Bangladesh, Nepal and Tanzania (2017-2018). Clinical observers collected time-stamped data (gold standard) for weighing at birth. We compared accuracy for two data sources: routine hospital registers and women's report at exit interview survey. We calculated absolute differences and individual-level validation metrics. We analysed birthweight coverage and quality gaps including timing and heaping. Qualitative data explored barriers and enablers for routine register data recording. RESULTS: Among 23,471 observed births, 98.8% were weighed. Exit interview survey-reported weighing coverage was 94.3% (90.2-97.3%), sensitivity 95.0% (91.3-97.8%). Register-reported coverage was 96.6% (93.2-98.9%), sensitivity 97.1% (94.3-99%). Routine registers were complete (> 98% for four hospitals) and legible > 99.9%. Weighing of stillbirths varied by hospital, ranging from 12.5-89.0%. Observed LBW rate was 15.6%; survey-reported rate 14.3% (8.9-20.9%), sensitivity 82.9% (75.1-89.4%), specificity 96.1% (93.5-98.5%); register-recorded rate 14.9%, sensitivity 90.8% (85.9-94.8%), specificity 98.5% (98-99.0%). In surveys, "don't know" responses for birthweight measured were 4.7%, and 2.9% for knowing the actual weight. 95.9% of observed babies were weighed within 1 h of birth, only 14.7% with a digital scale. Weight heaping indices were around two-fold lower using digital scales compared to analogue. Observed heaping was almost 5% higher for births during the night than day. Survey-report further increased observed birthweight heaping, especially for LBW babies. Enablers to register birthweight measurement in qualitative interviews included digital scale availability and adequate staffing. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital registers captured birthweight and LBW prevalence more accurately than women's survey report. Even in large hospitals, digital scales were not always available and stillborn babies not always weighed. Birthweight data are being captured in hospitals and investment is required to further improve data quality, researching of data flow in routine systems and use of data at every level.