Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38768186›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Validating the indicator "maternal death review coverage" to improve maternal mortality data: A retrospective analysis of district, facility, and individual medical record data.

Jewel Gausman, Ernest Kenu, Richard Adanu, Delia A B Bandoh, Mabel Berrueta, Suchandrima Chakraborty, Nizamuddin Khan, Ana Langer, Carolina Nigri, Magdalene A Odikro and 6 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

16 authors.

Jewel GausmanWomen and Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9880-2591
Ernest KenuDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Richard AdanuDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Delia A B BandohDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Mabel BerruetaInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Suchandrima ChakrabortyPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Nizamuddin KhanPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Ana LangerWomen and Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Carolina NigriInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Magdalene A OdikroDepartment of Epidemiology and Disease Control, University of Ghana School of Public Health, Accra, Ghana.
Verónica PingrayInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sowmya RameshPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Niranjan SaggurtiPopulation Council, New Delhi, India.
Paula VázquezInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Caitlin R WilliamsInstitute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS)), Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0002-4925-869X
R Rima JolivetWomen and Health Initiative, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1440-4722

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding causes and contributors to maternal mortality is critical from a quality improvement perspective to inform decision making and monitor progress toward ending preventable maternal mortality. The indicator "maternal death review coverage" is defined as the percentage of maternal deaths occurring in a facility that are audited. Both the numerator and denominator of this indicator are subject to misclassification errors, underreporting, and bias. This study assessed the validity of the indicator by examining both its numerator-the number and quality of death reviews-and denominator-the number of facility-based maternal deaths and comparing estimates of the indicator obtained from facility- versus district-level data. METHODS AND

findingsWe collected data on the number of maternal deaths and content of death reviews from all health facilities serving as birthing sites in 12 districts in three countries: Argentina, Ghana, and India. Additional data were extracted from health management information systems on the number and dates of maternal deaths and maternal death reviews reported from health facilities to the district-level. We tabulated the percentage of facility deaths with evidence of a review, the percentage of reviews that met the World Health Organization defined standard for maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response. Results were stratified by sociodemographic characteristics of women and facility location and type. We compared these estimates to that obtained using district-level data. and looked at evidence of the review at the district/provincial level. Study teams reviewed facility records at 34 facilities in Argentina, 51 facilities in Ghana, and 282 facilities in India. In total, we found 17 deaths in Argentina, 14 deaths in Ghana, and 58 deaths in India evidenced at facilities. Overall, >80% of deaths had evidence of a review at facilities. In India, a much lower percentage of deaths occurring at secondary-level facilities (61.1%) had evidence of a review compared to deaths in tertiary-level facilities (92.1%). In all three countries, only about half of deaths in each country had complete reviews: 58.8% (n = 10) in Argentina, 57.2% (n = 8) in Ghana, and 41.1% (n = 24) in India. Dramatic reductions in indicator value were seen in several subnational geographic areas, including Gonda and Meerut in India and Sunyani in Ghana. For example, in Gonda only three of the 18 reviews conducted at facilities met the definitional standard (16.7%), which caused the value of the indicator to decrease from 81.8% to 13.6%. Stratification by women's sociodemographic factors suggested systematic differences in completeness of reviews by women's age, place of residence, and timing of death.

conclusionsOur study assessed the validity of an important indicator for ending preventable deaths: the coverage of reviews of maternal deaths occurring in facilities in three study settings. We found discrepancies in deaths recorded at facilities and those reported to districts from facilities. Further, few maternal death reviews met global quality standards for completeness. The value of the calculated indicator masked inaccuracies in counts of both deaths and reviews and gave no indication of completeness, thus undermining the ultimate utility of the measure in achieving an accurate measure of coverage.

Indexed as

Maternal DeathMaternal MortalityAdultArgentinaFemaleGhanaHealth FacilitiesHumansIndiaMedical RecordsPregnancyRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID38768186
PMCPMC11104582

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.