Measuring maternal near-miss in a middle-income country: assessing the use of WHO and sub-Saharan Africa maternal near-miss criteria in Namibia.

Background: Namibia, a middle-income country in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), plans to use the Maternal Near Miss (MNM) approach. Adaptations of the World Health Organization (WHO) MNM defining criteria ('WHO MNM criteria') were previously proposed for low-income settings in sub-Saharan Africa ('SSA MNM criteria'), but whether these adaptations are required in middle-income settings is unknown. Objective: To establish MNM criteria suitable for use in Namibia, a middle-income country in SSA. Methods: Cross-sectional study from 1 March 2018 to 31 May 2018 in four Namibian hospitals. Pregnant women or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy or birth, fulfilling at least one WHO or SSA MNM criterion were included. Records of women identified by either only WHO criteria or only SSA criteria were assessed in detail. Results: 194 Women fulfilled any MNM criterion. WHO criteria identified 61 MNM, the SSA criteria 184 MNM. Of women who only fulfilled any of the unique SSA MNM criteria, 18 fulfilled the criterion 'eclampsia', one 'uterine rupture' and five 'laparotomy'. These women were assessed to be MNM. Thresholds for blood transfusion to define MNM due to haemorrhage were two units in the SSA and five in WHO set. Two or three units were given to 95 women for mild/moderate haemorrhage or chronic anaemia who did not fulfil any WHO criterion and were not considered MNM. Fourteen women who were assessed to be MNM from severe haemorrhage received four units. Conclusions: WHO MNM criteria may underestimate and SSA MNM criteria overestimate the prevalence of MNM in a middle-income country such as Namibia, where MNM criteria 'in between' may be more appropriate. Namibia opts to apply a modification of the WHO criteria, including eclampsia, uterine rupture, laparotomy and a lower threshold of four units of blood to define MNM. We recommend that other middle-income countries validate our criteria for their setting.

A step too far? Making health equity interventions in Namibia more sufficient.

BACKGROUND: Equality of health status is the health equity goal being pursued in developed countries and advocated by development agencies such as WHO and The Rockefeller Foundation for developing countries also. Other concepts of fair distribution of health such as equity of access to medical care may not be sufficient to equalise health outcomes but, nevertheless, they may be more practical and effective in advancing health equity in developing countries. METHODS: A framework for relating health equity goals to development strategies allowing progressive redistribution of primary health care resources towards the more deprived communities is formulated. The framework is applied to the development of primary health care in post-independence Namibia. RESULTS: In Namibia health equity has been advanced through the progressive application of health equity goals of equal distribution of primary care resources per head, equality of access for equal met need and equality of utilisation for equal need. For practical and efficiency reasons it is unlikely that health equity would have been advanced further or more effectively by attempting to implement the goal of equality of health status. CONCLUSION: The goal of equality of health status may not be appropriate in many developing country situations. A stepwise approach based on progressive redistribution of medical services and resources may be more appropriate. This conclusion challenges the views of health economists who emphasise the need to select a single health equality goal and of development agencies which stress that equality of health status is the most important dimension of health equity.