Abstract
ObjectivesTo explore lay perceptions of bleeding during and after delivery, and measure the frequency of self-reported indicators of bleeding.SettingYola, North-East Nigeria.ParticipantsWomen aged 15–49 years who delivered in the preceding 2 years of data collection period (2015–2016), and their family members who played key roles.MethodsData on perceptions of bleeding were collected through 7 focus group discussions, 21 in-depth interviews and 10 family interviews. Sampling was purposive and data were analysed thematically. A household survey was then conducted with 640 women using cluster sampling on postpartum bleeding indicators developed from the qualitative data; data were analysed descriptively.ResultsPerceptions of excessive bleeding fell under four themes: quantity of blood lost; rate/duration of blood flow; symptoms related to blood loss and receiving birth interventions/hearing comments from birth attendants. Young and less educated rural women had difficulty quantifying blood loss objectively, including when shown quantities using bottles. Respondents felt that acceptable blood loss levels depended on the individual woman and whether the blood is ‘good’ or ‘diseased/bad.’ Respondents believed that ‘diseased’ blood was a normal result of delivery and universally took steps to help it ‘come out.’ In the quantitative survey, indicators representing less blood loss were reported more frequently than those representing greater loss, for example, more women reported staining their clothes (33.6%) than the bed (18.1%) and the floor (6.2%). Overall, indicators related to quantity and rate of blood flow had higher frequencies compared with symptom and intervention-related/comment-related indicators.ConclusionWomen quantify bleeding during and after delivery in varied ways and some women do not see bleeding as problematic. This suggests the need for standard messaging to address subjectivity. The range of indicators and varied frequencies highlight the challenges of measuring excessive bleeding from self-reports. More work is needed in improving and testing validity of questions.
Funder
University College London Graduate Research Scholarship
University College London Overseas Research Scholarship
Reference58 articles.
1. Global causes of maternal death: a who systematic analysis;Say;Lancet Glob Health,2014
2. World Health Organization . Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2017: estimates by who, UNICEF, UNFPA, world bank group and the United nations population division World Health organization. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2019.
3. World Health Organisation . Who recommendations for the prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage, 2012. Available: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75411/1/9789241548502_eng.pdf
4. Maternal near-miss and death among women with postpartum haemorrhage: a secondary analysis of the Nigeria near-miss and maternal death survey;Sotunsa;BJOG,2019
5. When getting there is not enough: a nationwide cross‐sectional study of 998 maternal deaths and 1451 near‐misses in public tertiary hospitals in a low‐income country;Oladapo;BJOG: Int J Obstet Gy,2016
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献