Engaging women to set the research agenda for assisted vaginal birth.

INTRODUCTION: Public and patient involvement can provide crucial insights to optimise research by enhancing relevance and appropriateness of studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) engaged in an inclusive process to ensure that both technical experts and women had a voice in defining the research gaps and needs to increase or reintroduce the use of assisted vaginal birth (AVB) in settings where this intervention is needed but unavailable or underused. METHODS: We describe the methods and outcomes of online workshops led by WHO to obtain women representatives' perspectives about AVB research gaps and needs. RESULTS: After technical experts created a list of research questions based on various evidence syntheses, WHO organised four online workshops with 31 women's representatives from 27 mostly low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries. Women rated the importance and priority of the research questions proposed by the technical experts, improving and broadening some of them, added new questions, and voiced their main concerns and views about AVB. Women helped to put the research questions into context in their communities, highlighted neglected factors/dimensions that influence practices and affect women's experience during labour and childbirth, underscored less salient consequences of AVB, and highlighted the main concerns of women about research on AVB. The consolidated vision of technical experts and women's representatives resulted in a technical brief published by WHO. The technical brief is expected to stimulate global research and action closely aligned with women's priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a successful experience of engaging women, mostly from LMICs, in the identification of research gaps and needs to reintroduce AVB use. This process contributed to better aligning research questions with women's views, concerns, and priorities. Given the scarcity of reports about engaging women from LMICs to optimise research, this successful experience can serve as an inspiration for future work. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Women representatives were involved at every stage of the workshops described in full in this manuscript.

Optimizing the use of cesarean section in Argentina: design and methodology of a formative research for the development of interventions.

BACKGROUND: While cesarean section is an essential life-saving strategy for women and newborns, its current overuse constitutes a global problem. The aim of this formative research is to collect information from hospitals, health professionals and women regarding the use of cesarean section in Argentina. This article describes the methodology of the study, the characteristics of the hospitals and the profile of the participants. METHODS: This formative research is a mixed-method study that will be conducted in seven provinces of Argentina. The eligibility criteria for the hospitals are (a) use of the Perinatal Information System, (b) cesarean section rate higher than 27% in 2016, (c) ≥ 1000 deliveries per year. Quantitative and qualitative research techniques will be used for data collection and analysis. The main inquiry points are the determining factors for the use of cesarean section, the potential interventions to optimize the use of cesarean section and, in the case of women, their preferred type of delivery. DISCUSSION: It is expected that the findings will provide a situation diagnosis to help a context-sensitive implementation of the interventions recommended by the World Health Organization to optimize cesarean section use. Trial registration IS002316 Cesarean section is an essential medical tool for mothers and their children, but nowadays its overuse is a problem worldwide. Our purpose is to get information from hospitals, health professionals and women about how cesarean section is used in Argentina. In this protocol we describe how we will carry out the study and the characteristics of the hospitals and participants. We will implement this study in seven provinces of Argentina, in hospitals that have more than 1,000 births each year, had a cesarean section rate higher than 27% in 2016 and use the Perinatal Information System. We will gather information using forms, surveys and interviews. We want to identify the factors that decide the use of a cesarean section, the potential interventions that can improve the use of cesarean section and, in the case of women, the type of delivery they prefer. We expect that this study will give us a diagnosis of how cesarean section is used in Argentina, and that this will help to apply the interventions that the World Health Organization recommends to optimize the use of cesarean section in our specific context.

RESUMEN: INTRODUCCIóN: Aun cuando la cesárea es una intervención que puede ser esencial para salvar la vida de una mujer y su hijo, el crecimiento excesivo de su uso  es un problema global. El propósito de esta investigación formativa es recolectar información sobre las instituciones, profesionales de la salud y mujeres acerca del uso de la cesárea en la Argentina. Este artículo describe la metodología del estudio, las características de los hospitales y el perfil de los participantes. METODOLOGíA: Esta investigación formativa usa un diseño mixto aplicado en siete provincias del país. Los criterios de elegibilidad para los hospitales son: (a) uso del Sistema Informático Perinatal, (b) tasa de cesáreas mayor al 27% en 2016, y (c) ≥ 1000 partos por año. Se usarán técnicas cualitativas y cuantitativas para la recolección de datos y el análisis. Los principales temas a indagar son los determinantes del uso de la cesárea, las intervenciones para optimizar su uso y, en el caso de las mujeres, sus preferencias sobre el modo de parto. DISCUSIóN: Se espera que los resultados den lugar a un diagnóstico de situación que permita una implementación de las intervenciones propuesas por la OMS para optimizar el uso de la cesárea más ajustada al contexto. Registro del estudio IS002316.

Analgesia for vaginal birth: Secondary analysis from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of analgesia during labor in women who had a vaginal birth and to determine the factors associated with its use. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed of the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health, a cross-sectional, facility-based survey including 359 healthcare facilities in 29 countries. The prevalence of analgesia use for vaginal birth in different countries was reported according to the Human Development Index (HDI). Sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics of the participants with and without analgesia were compared. The prevalence ratios were compared across countries, HDI groups, and regions using a design-based χ2 test. RESULTS: Among the 221 345 women who had a vaginal birth, only 4% received labor analgesia, mainly epidural. The prevalence of women receiving analgesia was significantly higher in countries with a higher HDI than in countries with a lower HDI. Education was significantly associated with increased use of analgesia; nulliparous women and women undergoing previous cesarean delivery had a significantly increased likelihood of receiving analgesia. CONCLUSION: Use of analgesia for women undergoing labor and vaginal delivery was low, specifically in low-HDI countries. Whether low use of analgesia reflects women's desire or an unmet need for pain relief requires further studies.

Analgesia during Labor and Vaginal Birth among Women with Severe Maternal Morbidity: Secondary Analysis from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health.

AIM: To evaluate the use of analgesia for vaginal birth, in women with and without severe maternal morbidity (SMM) and to describe sociodemographic, clinical, and obstetric characteristics and maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with labor analgesia. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHO-MCS), a global cross-sectional study performed between May 2010 and December 2011 in 29 countries. Women who delivered vaginally and had an SMM were included in this analysis and were then divided into two groups: those who received and those who did not receive analgesia for labor/delivery. We further compared maternal characteristics and maternal and perinatal outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: From 314,623 women originally included in WHO-MCS, 9,788 developed SMM and delivered vaginally, 601 (6.1%) with analgesia and 9,187 (93.9%) without analgesia. Women with SMM were more likely to receive analgesia than those who did not experience SMM. Global distribution of SMM was similar; however, the use of analgesia was less prevalent in Africa. Higher maternal education, previous cesarean section, and nulliparity were factors associated with analgesia use. Analgesia was not an independent factor associated with an increase of severe maternal outcome (Maternal Near Miss + Maternal Death). CONCLUSIONS: The overall use of analgesia for vaginal delivery is low but women with SMM are more likely to receive analgesia during labor. Social conditions are closely linked with the likelihood of having analgesia during delivery and such a procedure is not associated with increased adverse maternal outcomes. Expanding the availability of analgesia in different levels of care should be a concern worldwide.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on delivery preferences in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Cesarean delivery rates in Brazil are among the highest in the world. User preference is often mentioned as an important factor driving this. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the results of studies into delivery preferences in Brazil. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, LILACS, and PsycINFO databases were searched, without language restrictions, using "delivery" and "preference" from inception to November 4, 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional or cohort studies with quantitative data on delivery preferences of lay persons in Brazil. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. A meta-analysis of proportions with a preference for cesarean delivery was performed, including subgroups analyses. MAIN RESULTS: There were 28 studies with 31 071 participants included. The overall prevalence of preference for cesarean delivery was 27.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.7%-27.7%; 28 studies, n=31 071). Cesarean delivery preference was higher among multiparas with previous cesarean deliveries (58.0%, 95% CI 56.6%-59.3%; nine studies, n=5542) than among multiparas without prior cesarean deliveries (17.3%, 95% CI 16.4%-18.2%; eight studies, n=7903), and among women with private health insurance (44.3%, 95% CI 43.0%-45.6%; nine studies, n=6048) than among those who depended on the public healthcare system (22.7%, 95% CI 22.2%-23.3%; 20 studies, n=24 314). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, most lay persons in Brazil did not prefer to deliver by cesarean.

Ecological study of effect of breast feeding on infant mortality in Latin America

Objective: To estimate the effect of exclusive breast feeding and partial breast feeding on infant mortality from diarrhoeal disease and acute respiratory infections in Latin America...

Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the unequal distribution in the performance of cesarean section delivery (CS) in the world and the resource-use implications of such inequity. STUDY DESIGN: We obtained data on the number of CSs performed in 137 countries in 2008. The consensus is that countries should achieve a 10% rate of CS; therefore, for countries that are below that rate, we calculated the cost to achieve a 10% rate. For countries with a CS rate of >15%, we calculated the savings that could be made by the achievement of a 15% rate. RESULTS: Fifty-four countries had CS rates of <10%, whereas 69 countries showed rates of >15%. The cost of the global saving by a reduction of CS rates to 15% was estimated to be $2.32 billion (US dollars); the cost to attain a 10% CS rate was $432 million (US dollars). CONCLUSION: CSs that are potentially medically unjustified appear to command a disproportionate share of global economic resources.