Intended versus actual delivery location and factors associated with change in delivery location among pregnant women in Southern Province, Zambia: a prespecified secondary observational analysis of the ZamCAT.

OBJECTIVES: This prespecified, secondary analysis of the Zambia Chlorhexidine Application Trial (ZamCAT) aimed to determine the proportion of women who did not deliver where they intended, to understand the underlying reasons for the discordance between planned and actual delivery locations; and to assess sociodemographic characteristics associated with concordance of intention and practice. DESIGN: Prespecified, secondary analysis from randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Recruitment occurred in 90 primary health facilities (HFs) with follow-up in the community in Southern Province, Zambia. PARTICIPANTS: Between 15 February 2011 and 30 January 2013, 39 679 pregnant women enrolled in ZamCAT. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The location where mothers gave birth (home vs HF) was compared with their planned delivery location. RESULTS: When interviewed antepartum, 92% of respondents intended to deliver at an HF, 6.1% at home and 1.2% had no plan. However, of those who intended to deliver at an HF, 61% did; of those who intended to deliver at home, only 4% did; and of those who intended to deliver at home, 2% delivered instead at an HF. Among women who delivered at home, women who were aged 25-34 and ≥35 years were more likely to deliver where they intended than women aged 20-24 years (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.31, 95% CI=1.11 to 1.50 and aOR=1.32, 95% CI=1.12 to 1.57, respectively). Women who delivered at HFs had greater odds of delivering where they intended if they received any primary schooling (aOR=1.34, 95% CI=1.09 to 1.72) or more than a primary school education (aOR=1.54, 95% CI=1.17 to 2.02), were literate (aOR=1.33, 95% CI=1.119 to 1.58), and were not in the lowest quintile of the wealth index. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies between intended and actual delivery locations highlight the need to go beyond the development of birth plans and exposure to birth planning messaging. More research is required to address barriers to achieving intentions of a facility-based childbirth. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT01241318).

Effect of an integrated neonatal care kit on cause-specific neonatal mortality in rural Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, Pakistan had the world's highest neonatal mortality rate. Within Pakistan, most neonatal deaths occur in rural areas where access to health facilities is limited, and robust vital registration systems are lacking. To improve newborn survival, there is a need to better understand the causes of neonatal death in high burden settings and engage caregivers in the promotion of newborn health. OBJECTIVE: To describe the causes of neonatal death in a rural area in Pakistan and to estimate the effect of an integrated neonatal care kit (iNCK) on cause-specific neonatal mortality. METHODS: We analyzed data from a community-based, cluster-randomized controlled trial of 5286 neonates in Rahim Yar Khan (RYK), Punjab, Pakistan between April 2014 and August 2015. In intervention clusters, Lady Health Workers (LHW) delivered the iNCK and education on its use to pregnant women while control clusters received the local standard of care. The iNCK included interventions to prevent and identify signs of infection, identify low birthweight (LBW), and identify and manage hypothermia. Verbal autopsies were attempted for all deaths. The primary outcome was cause-specific neonatal mortality. RESULTS: Verbal autopsies were conducted for 84 (57%) of the 147 reported neonatal deaths. The leading causes of death were infection (44%), intrapartum-related complications (26%) and prematurity/LBW (20%). There were no significant differences in neonatal mortality due to prematurity/LBW (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.15-1.24), infection (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.58-2.10) or intrapartum-related complications (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.0.45-2.41) among neonates who died in the intervention arm compared to those who died in the control arm. CONCLUSION: The major causes of neonatal deaths in RYK, Pakistan mirror the global landscape of neonatal deaths. The iNCK did not significantly reduce any cause-specific neonatal mortality.

Preventive lipid-based nutrient supplements given with complementary foods to infants and young children 6 to 23 months of age for health, nutrition, and developmental outcomes.

BACKGROUND: One nutritional intervention advocated to prevent malnutrition among children is lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS). LNS provide a range of vitamins and minerals, but unlike most other micronutrient supplements, LNS also provide energy, protein and essential fatty acids. Alternative recipes and formulations to LNS include fortified blended foods (FBF), which are foods fortified with vitamins and minerals, and micronutrient powders (MNP), which are a combination of vitamins and minerals, OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of preventive LNS given with complementary foods on health, nutrition and developmental outcomes of non-hospitalised infants and children six to 23 months of age, and whether or not they are more effective than other foods (including FBF or MNP).This review did not assess the effects of LNS as supplementary foods or therapeutic foods in the management of moderate and severe acute malnutrition. SEARCH METHODS: In October 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 21 other databases and two trials registers for relevant studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews and contacted the authors of studies and other experts in the area for any ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the impact of LNS plus complementary foods given at point-of-use (for any dose, frequency, duration) to non-hospitalised infants and young children aged six to 23 months in stable or emergency settings and compared to no intervention, other supplementary foods (i.e. FBF), nutrition counselling or multiple micronutrient supplements or powders for point-of-use fortification of complementary foods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for relevance and, for those studies included in the review, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager software. We used a random-effects meta-analysis for combining data as the interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables,. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified a total of 8124 records, from which we included 17 studies (54 papers) with 23,200 children in the review. The included studies reported on one or more of the pre-specified primary outcomes, and five studies included multiple comparison groups.Overall, the majority of trials were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting and other sources of bias, but at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention. Using the GRADE approach, we judged the quality of the evidence for most outcomes as low or moderate.LNS+complementary feeding compared with no intervention Thirteen studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with no intervention. LNS plus complementary feeding reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting by 7% (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.98; nine studies, 13,372 participants; moderate-quality evidence), severe stunting by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; five studies, 6151 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; eight studies; 13,172 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate underweight by 15% (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91; eight studies, 13,073 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and anaemia by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90; five studies, 2332 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no impact of LNS plus complementary feeding on severe wasting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.46; three studies, 2329 participants) and severe underweight (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13; two studies, 1729 participants). Adverse effects did not differ between the groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01; three studies, 3382 participants).LNS+complementary feeding compared with FBF Five studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with other FBF, including corn soy blend and UNIMIX. We pooled four of the five studies in meta-analyses and found that, when compared to other FBF, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate stunting (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; three studies, 2828 participants; moderate-quality evidence), moderate wasting (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; two studies, 2290 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and moderate underweight (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; two studies, 2280 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and FBF for severe stunting (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.42; two studies, 729 participants; low-quality evidence), severe wasting (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.81; two studies, 735 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and severe underweight (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.25; one study, 173 participants; low-quality evidence).LNS+complementary feeding compared with MNP Four studies compared LNS plus complementary feeding with MNP. We pooled data from three of the four studies in meta-analyses and found that compared to MNP, LNS plus complementary feeding significantly reduced the prevalence of moderate underweight (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; two studies, 2004 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and anaemia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; two studies, 557 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between LNS plus complementary feeding and MNP for moderate stunting (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; three studies, 2365 participants) and moderate wasting (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; two studies, 2004 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that LNS plus complementary feeding compared to no intervention is effective at improving growth outcomes and anaemia without adverse effects among children aged six to 23 months in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) in Asia and Africa, and more effective if provided over a longer duration of time (over 12 months). Limited evidence also suggests that LNS plus complementary feeding is more effective than FBF and MNP at improving growth outcomes.

Lipid-based nutrient supplements for maternal, birth, and infant developmental outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Ready-to-use lipid-based nutrient supplements (LNS) are a highly nutrient-dense supplement, which could be a good source of macro- and micronutrients for pregnant women who need to supplement their nutrient intake. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of LNS for maternal, birth and infant outcomes in pregnant women. Secondary objectives were to explore the most appropriate composition, frequency and duration of LNS administration. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 22 other databases and two trials registers for any published and ongoing studies. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and we contacted the authors of included studies and other experts in the field to identify any studies we may have missed, including any unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared LNS given in pregnancy to no intervention, placebo, iron folic acid (IFA), multiple micronutrients (MMN) or nutritional counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies in 8018 pregnant women. All four studies took place in stable community settings in low- and middle-income countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Malawi. None were in emergency settings. The oldest trial was published in 2009. Of the four included studies, one compared LNS to IFA, one compared LNS to MMN, and two compared LNS to both IFA and MMN.We considered the included studies to be of medium to high quality, and we rated the quality of the evidence as moderate using the GRADE approach.LNS versus IFAMaternal outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups as regards maternal gestational weight gain per week (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 1.36; 2 studies, 3539 participants). One study (536 participants) showed a two-fold increase in the prevalence of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the IFA group, but no difference between the groups as regards adverse effects. There was no difference between the two groups for maternal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.41; 3 studies, 5628 participants).Birth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for low birth weight (LBW) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; 3 studies, 4826 participants), though newborns in the LNS group had a slightly higher mean birth weight (mean difference (MD) 53.28 g, 95% CI 28.22 to 78.33; 3 studies, 5077 participants) and birth length (cm) (MD 0.24 cm, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; 3 studies, 4986 participants). There was a reduction in the proportion of infants who were small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; 3 studies, 4823 participants) and had newborn stunting (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94; 2 studies, 4166 participants) in the LNS group, but no difference between the LNS and IFA groups for preterm delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4924 participants), stillbirth (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.48; 3 studies, 5575 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.51). The current evidence for child developmental outcomes is not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions.LNS versus MMNMaternal outcomes: one study (662 participants) showed no difference between the LNS and MMN groups as regards gestational weight gain per week or adverse effects. Another study (557 participants) showed an increased risk of maternal anaemia in the LNS group compared to the MMN group.Birth and infant outcomes: there was no difference between the LNS and MMN groups for LBW (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 3 studies, 2404 participants), birth weight (MD 23.67 g, 95% CI -10.53 to 57.86; 3 studies, 2573 participants), birth length (MD 0.20 cm, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.42; 3 studies, 2567 participants), SGA (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 3 studies, 2393 participants), preterm delivery (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42; 3 studies, 2630 participants), head circumference z score (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21; 2 studies, 1549 participants) or neonatal death (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.15; 1 study, 1175 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review suggest that LNS supplementation has a slight, positive effect on weight at birth, length at birth, SGA and newborn stunting compared to IFA. LNS and MMN were comparable for all maternal, birth and infant outcomes. Both IFA and MMN were better at reducing maternal anaemia when compared to LNS. We did not find any trials for LNS given to pregnant women in emergency settings.Readers should interpret the beneficial findings of the review with caution since the evidence comes from a small number of trials, with one-large scale study (conducted in community settings in Bangladesh) driving most of the impact. In addition, effect sizes are too small to propose any concrete recommendation for practice.