Clean birth kits to improve birth practices: development and testing of a country level decision support tool

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Vanora A Hundley (1) (2)
  Bilal I Avan (3)
  Haris Ahmed (4)
  Wendy J Graham (5)
  
• 关键词：Clean birth practices ; Birth kits ; Decision support tool
• 刊名：BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
• 出版年：2012
• 出版时间：December 2012
• 年：2012
• 卷：12
• 期：1
• 全文大小：804KB
• 参考文献：1. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Metin G眉lmezoglu A, Van Look PFA: WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. / Lancet 2006,367(9516):1066鈥?074. CrossRef
  2. Bryce J, Boschi-Pinto C, Shibuya RE, Black RE, WHO Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group: WHO estimates of the causes of death in children. / Lancet 2005,365(9465):1147鈥?152. CrossRef
  3. Seale AC, Mwaniki M, Newton CRJC, Berkley JA: Maternal and early onset neonatal bacterial sepsis: burden and strategies for prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. / Lancet 2009, 9:428鈥?38.
  4. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Mullany LC, Lee ACC, Kerber K, Wall S, Darmstadt GL, Lawn JE: Clean birth and postnatal care practices to reduce neonatal deaths from sepsis and tetanus: a systematic review and Delphi estimation of mortality effect. / BMC Publ Health 2011,11(S3):S11. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/S3/S11 CrossRef
  5. Graham W, Braunholtz D, Islam M, Mathai M, Yoshida S, Kits for Quality Facility Births (Panel 2): Global Campaign for The Health MDGs: First Year Report 2008. 2008, 51.
  6. World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research: / Essential Newborn Care: Report of a Technical Working Group. Geneva: WHO; 1996. WHO/FRH/MSM/96.13
  7. World Health Organization, Division of Reproductive Health (Technical Support): / Care of the Umbilical Cord: A review of the evidence. Geneva: WHO; 1998. WHO/RHT/MSM/98.4
  8. Hundley V, Avan B, Braunholtz D, Graham WJ: Are birth kits a good idea? A systematic review of the evidence. / Midwifery 2012,28(2):204鈥?15. CrossRef
  9. WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank: / Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2008. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
  10. National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) [Pakistan], and Macro International Inc: / Pakistan. Demographic and Health Survey 2006鈥?7. Islamabad, Pakistan: National Institute of Population Studies and Macro International Inc; 2008.
  11. World Health Organization: / Pakistan: Health Profile. Geneva: WHO; 2011. Available at: http://www.who.int/gho/countries/pak.pdf
  12. Hassan H, Jokhio AH, Winter H, MacArthur C: Safe delivery and newborn care practices in Sindh, Pakistan: a community-based investigation of mothers and health workers. / Midwifery 2012, 28:466鈥?71. CrossRef
  13. Ayaz A, Saleem S: Neonatal mortality and prevalence of practices for newborn care in a squatter settlement of Karachi, Pakistan: a cross-sectional study. / PLoS ONE 2010,5(11):e13783. CrossRef
  14. Jehan I, Harris H, Salat S, Zeb A, Mobeen N, Pasha O, McClure EM, Moore J, Wright LL, Goldenberg RL: Neonatal mortality, risk factors and causes: a prospective population-based cohort study in urban Pakistan. / Bull World Health Organ 2009,87(2):130鈥?38. CrossRef
  15. Hundley V, Avan B, Braunholtz D, Fitzmaurice A, Graham W: Lessons regarding the use of birth kits in low resource countries. / Midwifery 2011,27(6):e222-e230. CrossRef
  16. Hundley V, Avan B, Graham W, Blencowe H, Lawn J: / CBK Country Level Decision Support Tool. Aberdeen: Immpact; 2012. Available at: http://www.immpact-international.org/uploads/files/Clean%20Birth%20Kit_%20Decision%20Tool_Revised.pdf
  17. Holloway I, Wheeler S: / Qualitative research in nursing and health care. 3rd edition. New-Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
  18. van Teijlingen ER, Pitchforth E: Focus group research in family planning and reproductive health care. / J Fam Plan Reprod H 2006,32(1):30鈥?2. CrossRef
  19. van Teijlingen ER, Hundley V: Pilot studies in family planning and reproductive health care. / J Fam Plan Reprod H 2005,31(3):219鈥?21. CrossRef
  20. Forrest Keenan K, van Teijlingen E, Pitchforth E: The analysis of qualitative research data in family planning and reproductive health care. / J Fam Plan Reprod H 2005,31(1):40鈥?3. CrossRef
  21. World Health Organization and Global Health Workforce Alliance: / Pakistan鈥檚 Lady Health Worker Programme. Geneva: WHO; 2008. Available at: http://www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/case_studies/CS_Pakistan_web_en.pdf
  22. USAID: / Sustaining health gains 鈥?building systems. Health systems report to Congress. Washington DC: USAID; 2009.
  23. Cameron A, Ewen M, Ross-Degnan D, Ball D, Laing R: Medicine prices, availability, and affordability in 36 developing and middle-income countries: a secondary analysis. / Lancet 2009,373(9659):240鈥?49. CrossRef
  24. Harding A (Chair) Partnerships with the Private Sector in Health: / What the International Community Can Do to Strengthen Health Systems in Developing Countries. Washington DC: Center for Global Development; 2009. Available at: http://www.cgdev.org/files/1423350_file_CGD_PSAF_Report_web.pdf
  25. UN Commission on Life-Saving Commodities: / Commission Concept Note. 2012. Available at: http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/images/Concept_Note_Commission_on_Commod
  26. Soofi S, Cousens S, Imdad A, Bhutto N, Ali N, Bhutta ZA: Topical application of chlorhexidine to neonatal umbilical cords for prevention of omphalitis and neonatal mortality in a rural district of Pakistan: a community-based, cluster-randomised trial. / Lancet 2012, 379:1029鈥?036. CrossRef
  27. Raven J, Hofman J, Adegoke A, van den Broek N: Methodology and tools for quality improvement in maternal and newborn health care. / Int J Gynecol Obstet 2011, 114:4鈥?. CrossRef
  28. Nyamtema A, Urassa DP, van Roosmalen J: Maternal health interventions in resource limited countries: a systematic review of packages, impacts and factors for change. / BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2011, 11:30. CrossRef
  29. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/12/158/prepub
  
• 作者单位：Vanora A Hundley (1) (2)
  Bilal I Avan (3)
  Haris Ahmed (4)
  Wendy J Graham (5)
  
  1. School of Health & Social Care, Bournemouth University, Royal London House, Christchurch Road, Bournemouth, BH1 3LT, UK
  2. NMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK
  3. Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
  4. Pathfinder International, Islamabad, Pakistan
  5. Immpact, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK
  

文摘

Background Clean birth practices can prevent sepsis, one of the leading causes of both maternal and newborn mortality. Evidence suggests that clean birth kits (CBKs), as part of package that includes education, are associated with a reduction in newborn mortality, omphalitis, and puerperal sepsis. However, questions remain about how best to approach the introduction of CBKs in country. We set out to develop a practical decision support tool for programme managers of public health systems who are considering the potential role of CBKs in their strategy for care at birth. Methods Development and testing of the decision support tool was a three-stage process involving an international expert group and country level testing. Stage 1, the development of the tool was undertaken by the Birth Kit Working Group and involved a review of the evidence, a consensus meeting, drafting of the proposed tool and expert review. In Stage 2 the tool was tested with users through interviews (9) and a focus group, with federal and provincial level decision makers in Pakistan. In Stage 3 the findings from the country level testing were reviewed by the expert group. Results The decision support tool comprised three separate algorithms to guide the policy maker or programme manager through the specific steps required in making the country level decision about whether to use CBKs. The algorithms were supported by a series of questions (that could be administered by interview, focus group or questionnaire) to help the decision maker identify the information needed. The country level testing revealed that the decision support tool was easy to follow and helpful in making decisions about the potential role of CBKs. Minor modifications were made and the final algorithms are presented. Conclusion Testing of the tool with users in Pakistan suggests that the tool facilitates discussion and aids decision making. However, testing in other countries is needed to determine whether these results can be replicated and to identify how the tool can be adapted to meet country specific needs.