Methodology to Determine Cause of Death for Stillbirths and Neonatal Deaths Using Automated Case Reports and a Cause-of-Death Panel.

BACKGROUND: Review of data from multiple sources is often necessary to determine cause of death for stillbirths and neonatal deaths, especially in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) where available data may vary. The minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) procedure provides granular histologic and microbiologic data that clinical reports and verbal autopsies cannot provide. Expert panel evaluation of data from individual deaths can be resource-intensive but remains essential to accurately infer causes of death. METHODS: The Project to Understand and Research Preterms and Stillbirths in South Asia (PURPOSe) study uses review panels to evaluate causes of death in 2 LMICs. To make the process manageable, a subset of the study variables was selected with professional input and organized into case reports. Case reports include clinical information, laboratory results, fetal or neonatal organ histology and polymerase chain reaction results from tissue obtained by MITS. Panelists evaluated the complete case report forms and then determined the cause of death based on available data. RESULTS: Computerized case reports averaged 2 to 3 pages. Approximately 6 to 8 cases were reviewed and discussed per 1-hour panel meeting. All panelists were provided the same information; missing data were noted. This limited bias between panelists and across meetings. Study teams notably took ownership of data quality. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized case reports for cause-of-death determination panel evaluation improve the efficiency of the review process, clarify available information, and limit bias across panelists, time, and location.

Task Sharing of Injectable Contraception Services in Pakistan: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Provision of injectable contraceptive services by lay health workers is endorsed by normative bodies, but support for this practice is not universal. We assessed whether lay providers (lady health workers, LHWs) could perform as well as clinically trained providers (family welfare workers, FWWs) on appropriate screening, counseling, and injection of intramuscular and subcutaneous depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) using a randomized controlled trial. In the urban sample (n = 355), 88 percent of FWW DMPA clients were appropriately screened versus 77 percent of LHW clients (noninferiority test p = 0.88). In rural facilities (n = 105), over 90 percent of both providers' clients were screened appropriately. Appropriate counseling was low overall, but LHWs were significantly noninferior to FWWs (p = 0.003). Notably, LHWs demonstrated better injection technique than FWWs. We could not conclude that LHWs screened new DMPA users as well as FWWs from an urban sample of providers but results from the rural sample suggests that service delivery context played an important role.