The Lancet Global Health Commission and respecting all workers to deliver the best care possible. Fourth, governments and civil society should ignite demand for quality in the population to empower people to hold systems accountable and actively seek high-quality care. Additional targeted actions in areas such as health financing, management, district-level learning, and others can complement these efforts. What works in one setting might not work elsewhere, and improvement efforts should be adapted for local context and monitored. Funders should align their support with system-wide strategies rather than contribute to the proliferation of micro-level efforts. In this Commission, we assert that providing health services without guaranteeing a minimum level of quality is ineffective, wasteful, and unethical. Moving to a highquality health system-one that improves health and generates confidence and economic benefits-is primarily a political, not technical, decision. National governments need to invest in high-quality health systems for their own people and make such systems accountable to people through legislation, education about rights, regulation, transparency, and greater public participation. Countries will know that they are on the way towards a high-quality, accountable health system when health workers and policymakers choose to receive health care in their own public institutions. Components Quality impacts Better health Level and distribution of patient-reported outcomes: function, symptoms, pain, wellbeing, quality of life, and avoiding serious health-related suffering Confidence in system Satisfaction, recommendation, trust, and care uptake and retention Economic benefit Ability to work or attend school, economic growth, reduction in health system waste, and financial risk protection Processes of care Competent care and systems Evidence-based, effective care: systematic assessment, correct diagnosis, appropriate treatment, counselling, and referral; capable systems: safety, prevention and detection, continuity and integration, timely action, and population health management Positive user experience Respect: dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, confidentiality, and clear communication; user focus: choice of provider, short wait times, patient voice and values, affordability, and ease of use Foundations Population Individuals, families, and communities as citizens, producers of better health outcomes, and system users: health needs, knowledge, health literacy, preferences, and cultural norms Governance Leadership: political commitment, change management; policies: regulations, standards, norms, and policies for the public and private sector, institutions for accountability, supportive behavioural architecture, and public health functions; financing: funding, fund pooling, insurance and purchasing, provider contracting and payment; learning and improvement: institutions for evaluation, measurement, and improvement, learning communities, and trustworthy data; intersectoral: roads, transport, wa...

Summary Background Babies with low birthweight (<2500 g) are at increased risk of early mortality. However, low birthweight includes babies born preterm and with fetal growth restriction, and not all these infants have a birthweight less than 2500 g. We estimated the neonatal and infant mortality associated with these two characteristics in low-income and middle-income countries. Methods For this pooled analysis, we searched all available studies and identified 20 cohorts (providing data for 2 015 019 livebirths) from Asia, Africa, and Latin America that recorded data for birthweight, gestational age, and vital statistics through 28 days of life. Study dates ranged from 1982 through to 2010. We calculated relative risks (RR) and risk differences (RD) for mortality associated with preterm birth (<32 weeks, 32 weeks to <34 weeks, 34 weeks to <37 weeks), small-for-gestational-age (SGA; babies with birthweight in the lowest third percentile and between the third and tenth percentile of a US reference population), and preterm and SGA combinations. Findings Pooled overall RRs for preterm were 6·82 (95% CI 3·56–13·07) for neonatal mortality and 2·50 (1·48–4·22) for post-neonatal mortality. Pooled RRs for babies who were SGA (with birthweight in the lowest tenth percentile of the reference population) were 1·83 (95% CI 1·34–2·50) for neonatal mortality and 1·90 (1·32–2·73) for post-neonatal mortality. The neonatal mortality risk of babies who were both preterm and SGA was higher than that of babies with either characteristic alone (15·42; 9·11–26·12). Interpretation Many babies in low-income and middle-income countries are SGA. Preterm birth affects a smaller number of neonates than does SGA, but is associated with a higher mortality risk. The mortality risks associated with both characteristics extend beyond the neonatal period. Differentiation of the burden and risk of babies born preterm and SGA rather than with low birthweight could guide prevention and management strategies to speed progress towards Millennium Development Goal 4—the reduction of child mortality. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SummaryBackgroundNational estimates for the numbers of babies born small for gestational age and the comorbidity with preterm birth are unavailable. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age (term-SGA and preterm-SGA), and the relation to low birthweight (<2500 g), in 138 countries of low and middle income in 2010.MethodsSmall for gestational age was defined as lower than the 10th centile for fetal growth from the 1991 US national reference population. Data from 22 birth cohort studies (14 low-income and middle-income countries) and from the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health (23 countries) were used to model the prevalence of term-SGA births. Prevalence of preterm-SGA infants was calculated from meta-analyses.FindingsIn 2010, an estimated 32·4 million infants were born small for gestational age in low-income and middle-income countries (27% of livebirths), of whom 10·6 million infants were born at term and low birthweight. The prevalence of term-SGA babies ranged from 5·3% of livebirths in east Asia to 41·5% in south Asia, and the prevalence of preterm-SGA infants ranged from 1·2% in north Africa to 3·0% in southeast Asia. Of 18 million low-birthweight babies, 59% were term-SGA and 41% were preterm. Two-thirds of small-for-gestational-age infants were born in Asia (17·4 million in south Asia). Preterm-SGA babies totalled 2·8 million births in low-income and middle-income countries. Most small-for-gestational-age infants were born in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh.InterpretationThe burden of small-for-gestational-age births is very high in countries of low and middle income and is concentrated in south Asia. Implementation of effective interventions for babies born too small or too soon is an urgent priority to increase survival and reduce disability, stunting, and non-communicable diseases.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation by a grant to the US Fund for UNICEF to support the activities of the Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG).

Building upon the successes of Countdown to 2015, Countdown to 2030 aims to support the monitoring and measurement of women's, children's, and adolescents' health in the 81 countries that account for 95% of maternal and 90% of all child deaths worldwide. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, the rate of decline in prevalence of maternal and child mortality, stillbirths, and stunting among children younger than 5 years of age needs to accelerate considerably compared with progress since 2000. Such accelerations are only possible with a rapid scale-up of effective interventions to all population groups within countries (particularly in countries with the highest mortality and in those affected by conflict), supported by improvements in underlying socioeconomic conditions, including women's empowerment. Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis of intervention coverage, equity, and drivers of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) in the 81 Countdown countries. First, even though strong progress was made in the coverage of many essential RMNCH interventions during the past decade, many countries are still a long way from universal coverage for most essential interventions. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence suggests that available services in many countries are of poor quality, limiting the potential effect on RMNCH outcomes. Second, within-country inequalities in intervention coverage are reducing in most countries (and are now almost non-existent in a few countries), but the pace is too slow. Third, health-sector (eg, weak country health systems) and non-health-sector drivers (eg, conflict settings) are major impediments to delivering high-quality services to all populations. Although more data for RMNCH interventions are available now, major data gaps still preclude the use of evidence to drive decision making and accountability. Countdown to 2030 is investing in improvements in measurement in several areas, such as quality of care and effective coverage, nutrition programmes, adolescent health, early childhood development, and evidence for conflict settings, and is prioritising its regional networks to enhance local analytic capacity and evidence for RMNCH.

In Tanzania access to urban and rural primary health care is relatively widespread, yet there is evidence of considerable bypassing of services; questions have been raised about how to improve functionality.The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of health workers working in the primary health care facilities in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania, in terms of their motivation to work, satisfaction and frustration, and to identify areas for sustainable improvement to the services they provide.The primary issues arising pertain to complexities of multitasking in an environment of staff shortages, a desire for more structured and supportive supervision from managers, and improved transparency in career development opportunities. Further, suggestions were made for inter-facility exchanges, particularly on commonly referred cases.The discussion highlights the context of some of the problems identified in the results and suggests that some of the preferences presented by the health workers be discussed at policy level with a view to adding value to most services with minimum additional resources.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundEmerging data show that many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems struggle to consistently provide good-quality care. Although monitoring of inequalities in access to health services has been the focus of major international efforts, inequalities in health-care quality have not been systematically examined.MethodsUsing the most recent (2007–16) Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys in 91 LMICs, we described antenatal care quality based on receipt of three essential services (blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing) among women who had at least one visit with a skilled antenatal-care provider. We compared quality across country income groups and quantified within-country wealth-related inequalities using the slope and relative indices of inequality. We summarised inequalities using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the extent to which other geographical and sociodemographic factors could explain these inequalities.FindingsGlobally, 72·9% (95% CI 69·1–76·8) of women who used antenatal care reported blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing; this number ranged from 6·3% in Burundi to 100·0% in Belarus. Antenatal care quality lagged behind antenatal care coverage the most in low-income countries, where 86·6% (83·4–89·7) of women accessed care but only 53·8% (44·3–63·3) reported receiving the three services. Receipt of the three services was correlated with gross domestic product per capita and was 40 percentage points higher in upper-middle-income countries compared with low-income countries. Within countries, the wealthiest women were on average four times more likely to report good quality care than the poorest (relative index of inequality 4·01, 95% CI 3·90–4·13). Substantial inequality remained after adjustment for subnational region, urban residence, maternal age, education, and number of antenatal care visits (3·20, 3·11–3·30).InterpretationMany LMICs that have reached high levels of antenatal care coverage had much lower and inequitable levels of quality. Achieving ambitious maternal, newborn, and child health goals will require greater focus on the quality of health services and their equitable distribution. Equity in effective coverage should be used as the new metric to monitor progress towards universal health coverage.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

BackgroundThe Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP), launched in 2014, aims to end preventable newborn deaths and stillbirths, with national targets of ≤12 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births and ≤12 stillbirths per 1000 total births by 2030. This requires ambitious improvement of the data on care at birth and of small and sick newborns, particularly to track coverage, quality and equity.MethodsIn a multistage process, a matrix of 70 indicators were assessed by the Every Newborn steering group. Indicators were graded based on their availability and importance to ENAP, resulting in 10 core and 10 additional indicators. A consultation process was undertaken to assess the status of each ENAP core indicator definition, data availability and measurement feasibility. Coverage indicators for the specific ENAP treatment interventions were assigned task teams and given priority as they were identified as requiring the most technical work. Consultations were held throughout.ResultsENAP published 10 core indicators plus 10 additional indicators. Three core impact indicators (neonatal mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, stillbirth rate) are well defined, with future efforts needed to focus on improving data quantity and quality. Three core indicators on coverage of care for all mothers and newborns (intrapartum/skilled birth attendance, early postnatal care, essential newborn care) have defined contact points, but gaps exist in measuring content and quality of the interventions. Four core (antenatal corticosteroids, neonatal resuscitation, treatment of serious neonatal infections, kangaroo mother care) and one additional coverage indicator for newborns at risk or with complications (chlorhexidine cord cleansing) lack indicator definitions or data, especially for denominators (population in need). To address these gaps, feasible coverage indicator definitions are presented for validity testing. Measurable process indicators to help monitor health service readiness are also presented. A major measurement gap exists to monitor care of small and sick babies, yet signal functions could be tracked similarly to emergency obstetric care.ConclusionsThe ENAP Measurement Improvement Roadmap (2015-2020) outlines tools to be developed (e.g., improved birth and death registration, audit, and minimum perinatal dataset) and actions to test, validate and institutionalise proposed coverage indicators. The roadmap presents a unique opportunity to strengthen routine health information systems, crosslinking these data with civil registration and vital statistics and population-based surveys. Real measurement change requires intentional transfer of leadership to countries with the greatest disease burden and will be achieved by working with centres of excellence and existing networks.