“…Our findings further contradicts the documented interpretation in Northeast India's study, which concluded that stillbirths were underreported. (Kusre & Baruah, 2016). However this present study supports a study done in Ethiopia which documented that stillbirths were over reported (Lindtj et al, 2018).…”
Section: Data Accuracy Of Stillbirth and Neonatal Mortalities Stillbirthsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Whereas a past researcher has found an average accuracy rate of 100% for stillbirth data capturing (Davies-tuck et al, 2017), the result from this present study has shown an average stillbirths data accuracy of 87%. The result of this current study provides evidence that no data source for reporting stillbirths is accurate (Kusre & Baruah, 2016). Taken together, the present study indicated an average discrepancy rate of 13% for all data sources verified.…”
Section: Data Accuracy Of Stillbirth and Neonatal Mortalities Stillbirthsupporting
Background: Stillbirths and neonatal deaths when poorly documented or collated, negatively affect the quality of decision and interventions. This study sought to assess the quality of routine neonatal mortalities and stillbirth records in health facilities and propose interventions to improve the data quality gaps.
Method: Descriptive cross-sectional study was employed. This study was carried out at three (3) purposively selected health facilities in Offinso North district. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths recorded in registers from 2015 to 2017, were recounted and compared with monthly aggregated data and District Health Information Management System 2 (DHIMS 2) data using a self-developed Excel Data Quality Assessment Tool (DQS). An observational checklist was used to collect primary data on completeness and availability. Accuracy ratio (verification factor), discrepancy rate, percentage availability and completeness of stillbirths and neonatal mortality data were computed using the DQS tool.
Findings: The results showed high discrepancy rate of stillbirth data recorded in registers compared with monthly aggregated reports (12.5%), and monthly aggregated reports compared with DHIMS 2 (13.5%). Neonatal mortalities data were under-reported in monthly aggregated reports, but over-reported in DHIMS 2. Overall data completeness was about 84.6%, but only 68.5% of submitted reports were supervised by facility in-charges. Delivery and admission registers availability were 100% and 83.3% respectively.
Conclusion: Quality of stillbirths and neonatal mortality data in the district is generally encouraging, but are not reliable for decision-making. Routine data quality audit is needed to reduce high discrepancies in stillbirth and neonatal mortality data in the district.
“…Our findings further contradicts the documented interpretation in Northeast India's study, which concluded that stillbirths were underreported. (Kusre & Baruah, 2016). However this present study supports a study done in Ethiopia which documented that stillbirths were over reported (Lindtj et al, 2018).…”
Section: Data Accuracy Of Stillbirth and Neonatal Mortalities Stillbirthsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Whereas a past researcher has found an average accuracy rate of 100% for stillbirth data capturing (Davies-tuck et al, 2017), the result from this present study has shown an average stillbirths data accuracy of 87%. The result of this current study provides evidence that no data source for reporting stillbirths is accurate (Kusre & Baruah, 2016). Taken together, the present study indicated an average discrepancy rate of 13% for all data sources verified.…”
Section: Data Accuracy Of Stillbirth and Neonatal Mortalities Stillbirthsupporting
Background: Stillbirths and neonatal deaths when poorly documented or collated, negatively affect the quality of decision and interventions. This study sought to assess the quality of routine neonatal mortalities and stillbirth records in health facilities and propose interventions to improve the data quality gaps.
Method: Descriptive cross-sectional study was employed. This study was carried out at three (3) purposively selected health facilities in Offinso North district. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths recorded in registers from 2015 to 2017, were recounted and compared with monthly aggregated data and District Health Information Management System 2 (DHIMS 2) data using a self-developed Excel Data Quality Assessment Tool (DQS). An observational checklist was used to collect primary data on completeness and availability. Accuracy ratio (verification factor), discrepancy rate, percentage availability and completeness of stillbirths and neonatal mortality data were computed using the DQS tool.
Findings: The results showed high discrepancy rate of stillbirth data recorded in registers compared with monthly aggregated reports (12.5%), and monthly aggregated reports compared with DHIMS 2 (13.5%). Neonatal mortalities data were under-reported in monthly aggregated reports, but over-reported in DHIMS 2. Overall data completeness was about 84.6%, but only 68.5% of submitted reports were supervised by facility in-charges. Delivery and admission registers availability were 100% and 83.3% respectively.
Conclusion: Quality of stillbirths and neonatal mortality data in the district is generally encouraging, but are not reliable for decision-making. Routine data quality audit is needed to reduce high discrepancies in stillbirth and neonatal mortality data in the district.
“…Often data of stillbirths are not recorded and if recorded there is often missing vital information on weight of the stillbirth, sex, gestational age, and cause of death. [5] Acquiring more knowledge about stillbirths is important because of its significant contribution to adverse pregnancy outcomes. [6] The purpose of the study is to understand the stillbirth profile to understand sociodemographic profile of the affected mothers, aetiology and seek ways of avoiding its recurrence by identification of risk factors.…”
BACKGROUND A foetal death is defined as "death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy; the death is indicated by the fact that after such separation the foetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" without specification of the duration of pregnancy. India has highest number of stillbirths in the world. Stillbirths are largely preventable if good quality obstetric care is made available at the right time. Currently, there are no global, systematic estimates for stillbirth causes of death. Acquiring more knowledge about stillbirths is important because of its significant contribution to adverse pregnancy outcomes. Aim-The purpose of the study is to understand the stillbirth profile to understand sociodemographic profile of the affected mothers, aetiology and seek ways of avoiding its recurrence by identification of risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study is a record based retrospective carried out in a tertiary care hospital from northeast India, from January 2016 to June 2016. Records were examined for address of the mother, her age, gestational age, gravida and parity, medical and obstetrical condition leading to stillbirth, weight, sex and condition of the foetus at the time of birth (macerated or fresh). RESULTS Total 4078 numbers of live births were recorded during the period of study. Total number of stillbirths recorded in the stillbirth registry was 114. Stillbirth rate for the hospital was 27.95/1000 births. Most of the mothers experiencing stillbirth were of the age group 20-25 years (52.6%) and were multiparous. Preterm was the most common gestational age group among stillbirths. Pregnancy-induced hypertension was the most common cause of stillbirth. CONCLUSION Present study shows that the risk of stillbirth is more among multigravidae women of age group of 20-25 years with prematurity and pregnancy-induced hypertension being other risk factors. Better obstetrical care can help in reduction of stillbirth rate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.