There is currently a lack of international guidance on the most appropriate treatment for moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), and discrepancies in national treatment guidelines exist. We aimed to explore whether food interventions are effective for MAM children 6-59 months old and whether they result in better outcomes compared with no treatment or management with nutrition counselling. A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2018, identifying studies that compared treating MAM children with food products versus management with counselling or no intervention. A total of 673 abstracts were screened, 101 full texts were read, and one study was identified that met our inclusion criteria. After broadening the criteria to include micronutrients in the control group and enrolment based on outdated anthropometric criteria, 11 studies were identified for inclusion. Seven of these found food products to be superior for anthropometric outcomes compared with counselling and/or micronutrient supplementation; two of the studies found no significant benefit of a food product intervention; and two studies were inconclusive.Hence, the majority of studies in this review found that food products resulted in greater anthropometric gains than counselling or micronutrient interventions. This was especially true if the supplementary food provided was of suitable quality and provided for an adequate duration. Improving quality of and adherence to counselling may improve its effectiveness, particularly in food secure contexts. There is currently a paucity of comparable studies on this topic as well as a lack of studies that include important functional outcomes beyond anthropometric proxies.

Background Risks of neonatal death, stillbirth and miscarriage are highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where data has most gaps and estimates rely on household surveys, dependent on women reporting these events. Underreporting of pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) is common, but few studies have investigated barriers to reporting these in LMICs. The EN-INDEPTH multi-country study applied qualitative approaches to explore barriers and enablers to reporting pregnancy and APOs in surveys, including individual, community, cultural and interview level factors. Methods The study was conducted in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Guinea-Bissau, Ethiopia, Uganda, Bangladesh and Ghana. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, 28 focus group discussions were conducted with 82 EN-INDEPTH survey interviewers and supervisors and 172 women between February and August 2018. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook. Results Survey interview processes influenced reporting of pregnancy and APOs. Women found questions about APOs intrusive and of unclear relevance. Across all sites, sociocultural and spiritual beliefs were major barriers to women reporting pregnancy, due to fear that harm would come to their baby. We identified several factors affecting reporting of APOs including reluctance to speak about sad memories and variation in recognition of the baby’s value, especially for APOs at earlier gestation. Overlaps in local understanding and terminology for APOs may also contribute to misreporting, for example between miscarriages and stillbirths. Interviewers’ skills and training were the keys to enabling respondents to open up, as was privacy during interviews. Conclusion Sociocultural beliefs and psycho-social impacts of APOs play a large part in underreporting these events. Interviewers’ skills, careful tool development and translation are the keys to obtaining accurate information. Reporting could be improved with clearer explanations of survey purpose and benefits to respondents and enhanced interviewer training on probing, building rapport and empathy.

Background Household surveys remain important sources of stillbirth data, but omission and misclassification are common. Classifying adverse pregnancy outcomes as stillbirths requires accurate reporting of vital status at birth and gestational age or birthweight for every pregnancy. Further categorisation, e.g. by sex, or timing (intrapartum/antepartum) improves data to understand and prevent stillbirth. Methods We undertook a cross-sectional population-based survey of women of reproductive age in five health and demographic surveillance system sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017–2018). All women answered a full birth history with pregnancy loss questions (FBH+) or a full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample across both groups were asked additional stillbirth questions. Questions were evaluated using descriptive measures. Using an interpretative paradigm and phenomenology methodology, focus group discussions with women exploring barriers to reporting birthweight for stillbirths were conducted. Thematic analysis was guided by an a priori codebook. Results Overall 69,176 women reported 98,483 livebirths (FBH+) and 102,873 pregnancies (FPH). Additional questions were asked for 1453 stillbirths, 1528 neonatal deaths and 12,620 surviving children born in the 5 years prior to the survey. Completeness was high (> 99%) for existing FBH+/FPH questions on signs of life at birth and gestational age (months). Discordant responses in signs of life at birth between different questions were common; nearly one-quarter classified as stillbirths on FBH+/FPH were reported born alive on additional questions. Availability of information on gestational age (weeks) (58.1%) and birthweight (13.2%) was low amongst stillbirths, and heaping was common. Most women (93.9%) were able to report the sex of their stillborn baby. Response completeness for stillbirth timing (18.3–95.1%) and estimated proportion intrapartum (15.6–90.0%) varied by question and site. Congenital malformations were reported in 3.1% stillbirths. Perceived value in weighing a stillborn baby varied and barriers to weighing at birth a nd knowing birthweight were common. Conclusions Improving stillbirth data in surveys will require investment in improving the measurement of vital status, gestational age and birthweight by healthcare providers, communication of these with women, and overcoming reporting barriers. Given the large burden and effect on families, improved data must be made available to end preventable stillbirths.

The need for respectful bereavement care following a stillbirth has been poorly recognised within global public health initiatives. To date, there has been no comprehensive cataloguing of providers that support parents after stillbirth, nor any review of the challenges they face. We aimed to identify providers (organisations and point persons) that support bereaved parents worldwide and to investigate the challenges they face. A systematic global online search was conducted to identify providers of support after stillbirth. Subsets of providers were surveyed and interviewed. These were purposively sampled to achieve diversity in geography, organisation size and point person role. Challenges in providing support in six key areas – stigma, funding, reach, policy, workforce, and advocacy – were analysed thematically. Overall, 621 providers from 75 countries were identified. No support providers were identified in 123 countries, and in the 6 countries that carry almost half of the global burden of stillbirths, only 8 support providers were found. Support providers faced challenges in accessing funding, reaching key populations, and training and retaining staff, while complex policies hampered bereavement care. Support providers were challenged by silence and stigma around stillbirth. Overcoming these challenges requires collaboration, effort, and political will at local and international scales.