Rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean and quality of maternal and newborn health care in private versus public facilities: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 16 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic by facility type among 16 European countries, comparing rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean. METHODS: Women who gave birth in the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020, to February 7, 2022, answered a validated online questionnaire. Rates of instrumental birth, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean, and a QMNC index were calculated for births in public versus private facilities. RESULTS: Responses from 25 206 participants were analyzed. Women giving birth in private compared with public facilities reported significantly more frequent total cesarean (32.5% vs 19.0%; aOR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52-1.90), elective cesarean (17.3% vs 7.8%; aOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.65-2.19), and emergency cesarean before labor (7.4% vs 3.9%; aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14-1.70) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), with analyses by country confirming these results. QMNC index results were heterogeneous across countries and regions in the same country and were largely affected by geographical distribution of regions rather than by type of facility alone. CONCLUSION: The study confirms that births in private facilities have higher odds of cesarean. It also suggests that QMNC should be closely monitored in all facilities to achieve high-quality care, independent of facility type or geographical distribution. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04847336.

WHO Standards-based questionnaire to measure health workers' perspective on the quality of care around the time of childbirth in the WHO European region: development and mixed-methods validation in six countries.

OBJECTIVES: Develop and validate a WHO Standards-based online questionnaire to measure the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth from the health workers' perspective. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. SETTING: Six countries of the WHO European Region. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The questionnaire is based on lessons learnt in previous studies, and was developed in three sequential phases: (1) WHO Quality Measures were prioritised and content, construct and face validity were assessed through a Delphi involving a multidisciplinary board of experts from 11 countries of the WHO European Region; (2) translation/back translation of the English version was conducted following The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research guidelines; (3) internal consistency, intrarater reliability and acceptability were assessed among 600 health workers in six countries. RESULTS: The questionnaire included 40 items based on WHO Standards Quality Measures, equally divided into four domains: provision of care, experience of care, availability of human and physical resources, organisational changes due to COVID-19; and its organised in six sections. It was translated/back translated in 12 languages: Bosnian, Croatian, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. The Cronbach's alpha values were ≥0.70 for each questionnaire section where questions were hypothesised to be interrelated, indicating good internal consistence. Cohen K or Gwet's AC1 values were ≥0.60, suggesting good intrarater reliability, except for one question. Acceptability was good with only 1.70% of health workers requesting minimal changes in question wording. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the questionnaire has good content, construct, face validity, internal consistency, intrarater reliability and acceptability in six countries of the WHO European Region. Future studies may further explore the questionnaire's use in other countries, and how to translate evidence generated by this tool into policies to improve the QMNC. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04847336.