Stillbirth and early neonatal mortality rates may be underestimated using recall information: A comparison of demographic surveillance methodologies

Author:

Jensen Andreas Møller12ORCID,Thysen Sanne Marie3ORCID,Furtado Oides2,Correia Claudino2,Helleringer Stéphane4,von Bornemann Hjelmborg Jacob5ORCID,Fisker Ane Bærent12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Bandim Health Project, Research Unit Open, Department of Clinical Research University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark

2. Bandim Health Project INDEPTH Network Bissau Guinea

3. Center for Clinical Research and Prevention Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital Copenhagen Denmark

4. Division of Social Science New York University Abu Dhabi Abu Dhabi UAE

5. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Biodemography, Department of Public Health University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveChild mortality and stillbirth rates (SBR) remain high in low‐income countries but may be underestimated due to incomplete reporting of child deaths in retrospective pregnancy/birth histories. The aim of this study is to compare stillbirth and mortality estimates derived using two different methods: the method assuming full information and the prospective method.MethodsBandim Health Project's Health and Demographic Surveillance Systems (HDSS) follows women of reproductive age and children under five through routine home visits every 1, 2 or 6 months. Between 2012 and 2020, we estimated and compared early neonatal (ENMR, <7 days), neonatal (NMR, <28 days), and infant mortality (IMR, <1 year) per 1000 live births and SBR per 1000 births. Risk time for children born to registered women was calculated from birth (the method assuming full information) versus date of first observation in the HDSS (the prospective method), either at birth (for pregnancy registration) or registration. Rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier estimator and compared in generalised linear models allowing for within‐child correlation obtaining relative risks (RR).ResultsWe registered and followed 29,413 infants (1380 deaths; 1459 stillbirths) prospectively. An additional 164 infant deaths and 129 stillbirths were registered retrospectively and included in the method assuming full information. The ENMR was 24.5 (95%CI: 22.6–26.4) for the method assuming full information and 25.8 (23.7–27.8) for the prospective method, RR = 0.96 (0.93–0.99). Differences were smaller for the NMRs and IMRs. For SBRs, the estimates were 53.5 (50.9–56.0) and 58.6 (55.7–61.5); RR = 0.91 (0.90–0.93). The difference between methods became more pronounced when the analysis was limited to areas visited every 6 months: RR for ENMR: 0.91 (0.86–0.96) and RR for SBR: 0.85 (0.83–0.87).ConclusionsAssuming full information underestimates SBR and ENMR. Accounting for omissions of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths may lead to more accurate estimates and improved ability to monitor mortality.

Funder

Syddansk Universitet

Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Infectious Diseases,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Parasitology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3