No abstract

High-quality evidence about low-risk pregnancies indicates that place of birth had no statistically significant impact on infant mortality. The lower odds of maternal morbidity and obstetric intervention support the expansion of birth centre and home birth options for women with low-risk pregnancies.

Summary Background Strengthening the capacity of midwives to deliver high-quality maternal and newborn health services has been highlighted as a priority by global health organisations. To support low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their decisions about investments in health, we aimed to estimate the potential impact of midwives on reducing maternal and neonatal deaths and stillbirths under several intervention coverage scenarios. Methods For this modelling study, we used the Lives Saved Tool to estimate the number of deaths that would be averted by 2035, if coverage of health interventions that can be delivered by professional midwives were scaled up in 88 countries that account for the vast majority of the world's maternal and neonatal deaths and stillbirths. We used four scenarios to assess the effects of increasing the coverage of midwife-delivered interventions by a modest amount (10% every 5 years), a substantial amount (25% every 5 years), and the amount needed to reach universal coverage of these interventions (ie, to 95%); and the effects of coverage attrition (a 2% decrease every 5 years). We grouped countries in three equal-sized groups according to their Human Development Index. Group A included the 30 countries with the lowest HDI, group B included 29 low-to-medium HDI countries, and group C included 29 medium-to-high HDI countries. Findings We estimated that, relative to current coverage, a substantial increase in coverage of midwife-delivered interventions could avert 41% of maternal deaths, 39% of neonatal deaths, and 26% of stillbirths, equating to 2·2 million deaths averted per year by 2035. Even a modest increase in coverage of midwife-delivered interventions could avert 22% of maternal deaths, 23% of neonatal deaths, and 14% of stillbirths, equating to 1·3 million deaths averted per year by 2035. Relative to current coverage, universal coverage of midwife-delivered interventions would avert 67% of maternal deaths, 64% of neonatal deaths, and 65% of stillbirths, allowing 4·3 million lives to be saved annually by 2035. These deaths averted would be particularly concentrated in the group B countries, which currently account for a large proportion of the world's population and have high mortality rates compared with group C. Interpretation Midwives can help to substantially reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and stillbirths in LMICs. However, to realise this potential, midwives need to have skills and competencies in line with recommendations from the International Confederation of Midwives, to be part of a team of sufficient size and skill, and to work in an enabling environment. Our study highlights the potential of midwives but there are many challenges to the achievement of this potential. If increased coverage of midwife-delivered interventions can be achieved, health systems will be better able to provide effective coverage of essential sexual, reproductive, ...

Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

IntroductionThe free maternal health policy was implemented in Ghana in 2008 under the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS). The policy sought to eliminate out of pocket (OOP) payments and enhance the utilisation of maternal health services. It is unclear whether the policy had altered OOP payments for services. The study explored views on costs and actual OOP payments during pregnancy. The source of funding for payments was also explored.MethodsA convergent parallel mixed methods design, involving quantitative and qualitative data collection approaches. The study was set in the Kassena-Nankana municipality, a rural area in Ghana. Women (n = 406) who utilised services during pregnancy were surveyed. Also, 10 focus groups discussions (FGDs) were held with women who used services during pregnancy as well as 28 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with midwives/nurses (n = 25) and insurance managers/directors (n = 3). The survey was analysed using descriptive statistics, focussing on costs from the women’s perspective. Qualitative data were audio recorded, transcribed and translated verbatim into English where necessary. The transcripts were read and coded into themes and sub-themes.ResultsThe NHIS did not cover all expenses in relation to maternal health services. The overall mean for OOP cost during pregnancy was GH¢17.50 (US$8.60). Both FGDs and IDIs showed that women especially paid for drugs and ultrasound scan services. Sixty-five percent of the women used savings, whilst twenty-two percent sold assets to meet the OOP cost. Some women were unable to afford payments due to poverty and had to forgo treatment. Participants called for payments to be eliminated and for the NHIS to absorb the cost of emergency referrals. All participants admitted the benefits of the policy.ConclusionWomen needed to make payments despite the policy. Measures should be put in place to eliminate payments to enable all women to receive services and promote universal health coverage.