Variation in stillbirth rates across high-income countries and large equity gaps within high-income countries persist. If all high-income countries achieved stillbirth rates equal to the best performing countries, 19 439 late gestation (28 weeks or more) stillbirths could have been avoided in 2015. The proportion of unexplained stillbirths is high and can be addressed through improvements in data collection, investigation, and classification, and with a better understanding of causal pathways. Substandard care contributes to 20-30% of all stillbirths and the contribution is even higher for late gestation intrapartum stillbirths. National perinatal mortality audit programmes need to be implemented in all high-income countries. The need to reduce stigma and fatalism related to stillbirth and to improve bereavement care are also clear, persisting priorities for action. In high-income countries, a woman living under adverse socioeconomic circumstances has twice the risk of having a stillborn child when compared to her more advantaged counterparts. Programmes at community and country level need to improve health in disadvantaged families to address these inequities.

Efforts to achieve the new worldwide goals for maternal and child survival will also prevent stillbirth and improve health and developmental outcomes. However, the number of annual stillbirths remains unchanged since 2011 and is unacceptably high: an estimated 2.6 million in 2015. Failure to consistently include global targets or indicators for stillbirth in post-2015 initiatives shows that stillbirths are hidden in the worldwide agenda. This Series paper summarises findings from previous papers in this Series, presents new analyses, and proposes specific criteria for successful integration of stillbirths into post-2015 initiatives for women's and children's health. Five priority areas to change the stillbirth trend include intentional leadership; increased voice, especially of women; implementation of integrated interventions with commensurate investment; indicators to measure effect of interventions and especially to monitor progress; and investigation into crucial knowledge gaps. The post-2015 agenda represents opportunities for all stakeholders to act together to end all preventable deaths, including stillbirths.

This first paper of the Lancet Series on ending preventable stillbirths reviews progress in essential areas, identified in the 2011 call to action for stillbirth prevention, to inform the integrated post-2015 agenda for maternal and newborn health. Worldwide attention to babies who die in stillbirth is rapidly increasing, from integration within the new Global Strategy for Women's, Children's and Adolescents' Health, to country policies inspired by the Every Newborn Action Plan. Supportive new guidance and metrics including stillbirth as a core health indicator and measure of quality of care are emerging. Prenatal health is a crucial biological foundation to life-long health. A key priority is to integrate action for prenatal health within the continuum of care for maternal and newborn health. Still, specific actions for stillbirths are needed for advocacy, policy formulation, monitoring, and research, including improvement in the dearth of data for effective coverage of proven interventions for prenatal survival. Strong leadership is needed worldwide and in countries. Institutions with a mandate to lead global efforts for mothers and their babies must assert their leadership to reduce stillbirths by promoting healthy and safe pregnancies.

Background Stillbirth is a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) application of the International Classification of Diseases for perinatal mortality (ICD‐PM) aims to improve data on stillbirth to enable prevention. Objectives To identify globally reported causes of stillbirth, classification systems, and alignment with the ICD‐PM. Search strategy We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and Pubmed from 2009 to 2016. Selection criteria Reports of stillbirth causes in unselective cohorts. Data collection and analysis Pooled estimates of causes were derived for country representative reports. Systems and causes were assessed for alignment with the ICD‐PM. Data are presented by income setting (low, middle, and high income countries; LIC, MIC, HIC). Main results Eighty‐five reports from 50 countries (489 089 stillbirths) were included. The most frequent categories were Unexplained, Antepartum haemorrhage, and Other (all settings); Infection and Hypoxic peripartum (LIC), and Placental (MIC, HIC). Overall report quality was low. Only one classification system fully aligned with ICD‐PM. All stillbirth causes mapped to ICD‐PM. In a subset from HIC, mapping obscured major causes. Conclusions There is a paucity of quality information on causes of stillbirth globally. Improving investigation of stillbirths and standardisation of audit and classification is urgently needed and should be achievable in all well‐resourced settings. Implementation of the WHO Perinatal Mortality Audit and Review guide is needed, particularly across high burden settings. Funding HR, SH, SHL, and AW were supported by an NHMRC‐CRE grant (APP1116640). VF was funded by an NHMRC‐CDF (APP1123611). Tweetable abstract Urgent need to improve data on causes of stillbirths across all settings to meet global targets. Plain Language Summary Background and methodsNearly three million babies are stillborn every year. These deaths have deep and long‐lasting effects on parents, healthcare providers, and the society. One of the major challenges to preventing stillbirths is the lack of information about why they happen. In this study, we collected reports on the causes of stillbirth from high‐, middle‐, and low‐income countries to: (1) Understand the causes of stillbirth, and (2) Understand how to improve reporting of stillbirths. FindingsWe found 85 reports from 50 different countries. The information available from the reports was inconsistent and often of poor quality, so it was hard to get a clear picture about what are the causes of stillbirth across the world. Many different definitions of stillbirth were used. There was also wide variation in what investigations of the mother and baby were undertaken to identify the cause of stillbirth. Stillbirths in all income settings (low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries) were most frequently reported as Unexplained, Other, and Haemorrhage (bleeding). Unexplained and Other are not helpful in understanding why a baby was stillborn. In low‐income countries, stillbirths were often attribute...

Objective To assess the frequency of additional care, and parents' perceptions of quality, respectful care, in pregnancies subsequent to stillbirth.Design Multi-language web-based survey.Setting International.Population A total of 2716 parents, from 40 high-and middleincome countries.Methods Data were obtained from a broader survey of parents' experiences following stillbirth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and stratified by geographic region. Subgroup analyses explored variation in additional care by gestational age at index stillbirth.Main outcome measures Frequency of additional care, and perceptions of quality, respectful care.Results The majority (66%) of parents conceived their subsequent pregnancy within 1 year of stillbirth. Additional antenatal care visits and ultrasound scans were provided for 67% and 70% of all parents, respectively, although there was wide variation across geographic regions. Care addressing psychosocial needs was less frequently provided, such as additional visits to a bereavement counsellor (10%) and access to named care provider's phone number (27%). Compared with parents whose stillbirth occurred at ≤ 29 weeks of gestation, parents whose stillbirth occurred at ≥ 30 weeks of gestation were more likely to receive various forms of additional care, particularly the option for early delivery after 37 weeks. Around half (47-63%) of all parents felt that elements of quality, respectful care were consistently applied, such as spending enough time with parents and involving parents in decision-making.Conclusions Greater attention is required to providing thoughtful, empathic and collaborative care in all pregnancies following stillbirth. Specific education and training for health professionals is needed.

COVID-19 can raise awareness at the country level and locally so that preventive measures can be taken and appropriate, respectful clinical and bereavement care can be provided if stillbirth or newborn death occurs.Reducing preventable stillbirths and newborn deaths must be a global priority. This goal requires not only sustained, universal access to quality maternal and newborn care, it also requires the data to track and guide public health action. COVID-19 control needs to be fully integrated into maternal, child, and newborn health care so that the two can coexist. All outcomes must be counted. Ensuring all women and babies receive the right care, at the right time, from the right people, and that all perinatal outcomes are counted and reported has never been more important than it is now.

BackgroundEach year, about 5.3 million babies die in the perinatal period. Understanding of causes of death is critical for prevention, yet there is no globally acceptable classification system. Instead, many disparate systems have been developed and used. We aimed to identify all systems used or created between 2009 and 2014, with their key features, including extent of alignment with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and variation in features by region, to inform the World Health Organization’s development of a new global approach to classifying perinatal deaths.MethodsA systematic literature review (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Global Health, and PubMed) identified published and unpublished studies and national reports describing new classification systems or modifications of existing systems for causes of perinatal death, or that used or tested such systems, between 2009 and 2014. Studies reporting ICD use only were excluded. Data were independently double-extracted (except from non-English publications). Subgroup analyses explored variation by extent and region.ResultsEighty-one systems were identified as new, modifications of existing systems, or having been used between 2009 and 2014, with an average of ten systems created/modified each year. Systems had widely varying characteristics: (i) comprehensiveness (40 systems classified both stillbirths and neonatal deaths); (ii) extent of use (systems were created in 28 countries and used in 40; 17 were created for national use; 27 were widely used); (iii) accessibility (three systems available in e-format); (iv) underlying cause of death (64 systems required a single cause of death); (v) reliability (10 systems tested for reliability, with overall Kappa scores ranging from .35–.93); and (vi) ICD alignment (17 systems used ICD codes). Regional databases were not searched, so system numbers may be underestimated. Some non-differential misclassification of systems was possible.ConclusionsThe plethora of systems in use, and continuing system development, hamper international efforts to improve understanding of causes of death. Recognition of the features of currently used systems, combined with a better understanding of the drivers of continued system creation, may help the development of a truly effective global system.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1071-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundTo reduce the burden of 5.3 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths annually, an understanding of causes of deaths is critical. A systematic review identified 81 systems for classification of causes of stillbirth (SB) and neonatal death (NND) between 2009 and 2014. The large number of systems hampers efforts to understand and prevent these deaths. This study aimed to assess the alignment of current classification systems with expert-identified characteristics for a globally effective classification system.MethodsEighty-one classification systems were assessed for alignment with 17 characteristics previously identified through expert consensus as necessary for an effective global system. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Systems were assessed against each characteristic and weighted and unweighted scores assigned to each. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by system use, setting, type of death included and type of characteristic.ResultsNone of the 81 systems were aligned with more than 9 of the 17 characteristics; most (82 %) were aligned with four or fewer. On average, systems were aligned with 19 % of characteristics. The most aligned system (Frøen 2009-Codac) still had an unweighted score of only 9/17. Alignment with individual characteristics ranged from 0 to 49 %. Alignment was somewhat higher for widely used as compared to less used systems (22 % v 17 %), systems used only in high income countries as compared to only in low and middle income countries (20 % vs 16 %), and systems including both SB and NND (23 %) as compared to NND-only (15 %) and SB-only systems (13 %). Alignment was higher with characteristics assessing structure (23 %) than function (15 %).ConclusionsThere is an unmet need for a system exhibiting all the characteristics of a globally effective system as defined by experts in the use of systems, as none of the 81 contemporary classification systems assessed was highly aligned with these characteristics. A particular concern in terms of global effectiveness is the lack of alignment with “ease of use” among all systems, including even the most-aligned. A system which meets the needs of users would have the potential to become the first truly globally effective classification system.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1040-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.