Errors in estimated gestational ages reduce the likelihood of health facility deliveries: results from an observational cohort study in Zanzibar.
Clicks: 336
ID: 88813
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Improving Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
79.6
/100
329 views
259 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Most maternal health programs in low- and middle- income countries estimate gestational age to provide appropriate antenatal care at the correct times throughout the pregnancy. Although various gestational dating methods have been validated in research studies, the performance of these methods has not been evaluated on a larger scale, such as within health systems. The objective of this research was to investigate the magnitude and impact of errors in estimated delivery dates on health facility delivery among women enrolled in a maternal health program in Zanzibar.This study included 4225 women who were enrolled in the Safer Deliveries program and delivered before May 31, 2017. The exposure of interest was error in estimated delivery date categorized as: severe overestimate, when estimated delivery date (EDD) was 36 days or more after the actual delivery date (ADD); moderate overestimate, when EDD was 15 to 35 days after ADD; accurate, when EDD was 6 days before to 14 days after ADD; and underestimate, when EDD was 7 days or more before ADD. We used Chi-squared tests to identify factors associated with errors in estimated delivery dates. We performed logistic regression to assess the impact of errors in estimated delivery dates on health facility delivery adjusting for age, district of residence, HIV status, and occurrence of past home delivery.In our data, 28% of the estimated delivery dates were a severe overestimate, 23% moderate overestimate, 41% accurate, and 8% underestimate. Compared to women with an accurate delivery date, women with a moderate or severe overestimate were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: [0.59, 0.86]; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: [0.61, 0.91]). When adjusting for multiple confounders, women with moderate overestimates were significantly less likely to deliver in a health facility (AOR = 0.76, 95% CI: [0.61, 0.93]); the result moved slightly towards null for women with severe overestimates (AOR = 0.84, 95% CI: [0.69, 1.03]).The overestimation of women's EDDs reduces the likelihood of health facility delivery. To address this, maternal health programs should improve estimation of EDD or attempt to curb the effect of these errors within their programs.
| Reference Key |
fulcher2020errorsbmc
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Fulcher, Isabel;Hedt, Kaya;Marealle, Stella;Tibaijuka, Jalia;Abdalla, Omar;Hofmann, Rachel;Layer, Erica;Mitchell, Marc;Hedt-Gauthier, Bethany; |
| Journal | BMC health services research |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
10.1186/s12913-020-4904-5
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.