Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33557862›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2021

Birth, stillbirth and death registration data completeness, quality and utility in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

Simon Kasasa, Davis Natukwatsa, Edward Galiwango, Tryphena Nareeba, Collins Gyezaho, Ane Baerent Fisker, Mezgebu Yitayal Mengistu, Francis Dzabeng, M Moinuddin Haider, Judith Yargawa and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Closing the birth registration gap forGlobal health action · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 9 countries.

Simon Kasasa *IgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Iganga, Uganda. skasasa@musph.ac.ug.
Davis Natukwatsa *IgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Iganga, Uganda.
Edward GaliwangoIgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Iganga, Uganda.
Tryphena NareebaIgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Iganga, Uganda.
Collins GyezahoIgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Iganga, Uganda.
Ane Baerent FiskerBandim Health Project, Bissau, Guinea-Bissau.
Mezgebu Yitayal MengistuDabat Research Centre Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Dabat, Ethiopia.
Francis DzabengKintampo Health Research Centre, Kintampo, Ghana.
M Moinuddin HaiderHealth Systems and Population Studies Division, icddr,b, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Judith YargawaMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Joseph AkuzeMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Angela BaschieriMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Claudia CappaUnited Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), New York, USA.
Debra JacksonMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Joy E LawnMaternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Hannah Blencowe *Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive & Child Health (MARCH) Centre, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dan Kajungu *IgangaMayuge Health and Demographic Surveillance System, Makerere University Centre for Health and Population Research, Iganga, Uganda.
Every Newborn-INDEPTH Study Collaborative Group
Makerere University · UGLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUnited Nations Children's Fund · USInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDStatens Serum Institut · DKBusoga University · UGKintampo Health Research Centre · GH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBirth registration is a child's first right. Registration of live births, stillbirths and deaths is foundational for national planning. Completeness of birth registration for live births in low- and middle-income countries is measured through population-based surveys which do not currently include completeness of stillbirth or death registration.

methodsThe EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of women of reproductive age was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017-2018). In four African sites, we included new/modified questions regarding registration for 1177 stillbirths and 11,881 livebirths (1333 neonatal deaths and 10,548 surviving the neonatal period). Questions were evaluated for completeness of responses, data quality, time to administer and estimates of registration completeness using descriptive statistics. Timing of birth registration, factors associated with non-registration and reported barriers were assessed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

resultsAlmost all women, irrespective of their baby's survival, responded to registration questions, taking an average of < 1 min. Reported completeness of birth registration was 30.7% (6.1-53.5%) for babies surviving the neonatal period, compared to 1.7% for neonatal deaths (0.4-5.7%). Women were able to report age at birth registration for 93.6% of babies. Non-registration of babies surviving the neonatal period was significantly higher for home-born children (aOR 1.43 (95% CI 1.27-1.60)) and in Dabat (Ethiopia) (aOR 4.11 (95% CI 3.37-5.01)). Other socio-demographic factors associated with non-registration included younger age of mother, more prior births, little or no education, and lower socio-economic status. Neonatal death registration questions were feasible (100% women responded; only 1% did not know), revealing extremely low completeness with only 1.2% of neonatal deaths reported as registered. Despite > 70% of stillbirths occurring in facilities, only 2.5% were reported as registered.

conclusionsQuestions on birth, stillbirth and death registration were feasible in a household survey. Completeness of birth registration is low in all four sites, but stillbirth and neonatal death registration was very low. Closing the registration gap amongst facility births could increase registration of both livebirths and facility deaths, including stillbirths, but will require co-ordination between civil registration systems and the often over-stretched health sector. Investment and innovation is required to capture birth and especially deaths in both facility and community systems.

Indexed as

Perinatal DeathStillbirthChildData AccuracyData CollectionEducational StatusFemaleHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyBirth certificatesBirth registrationDeath registrationNeonatal deathStillbirthSurveyVital statistics

Identifiers

PMID33557862
PMCPMC7869445
OpenAlexW3127028479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.