Lassi Zohra S, Kedzior Sophie Ge, Bhutta Zulfiqar A
University of Adelaide, Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia, Australia.
Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 5;2019(11):CD007647. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007647.pub2.
In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), health services are under-utilised, and several studies have reported improvements in neonatal outcomes following health education imparted to mothers in homes, at health units, or in hospitals. However, evaluating health educational strategy to deliver newborn care, such as one-to-one counselling or group counselling via peer or support groups, or delivered by health professionals, requires rigorous assessment of methodological design and quality, as well as assessment of cost-effectiveness, affordability, sustainability, and reproducibility in diverse health systems.
To compare a community health educational strategy versus no strategy or the existing approach to health education on maternal and newborn care in LMICs, as imparted to mothers or their family members specifically in community settings during the antenatal and/or postnatal period, in terms of effectiveness for improving neonatal health and survival (i.e. neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, access to health care, and cost).
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 May 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 May 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2 May 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
Community-based randomised controlled, cluster-randomised, or quasi-randomised controlled trials.
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method and prepared 'Summary of findings' tables.
We included in this review 33 original trials (reported in 62 separate articles), which were conducted across Africa and Central and South America, with most reported from Asia, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 33 community educational interventions provided, 16 included family members in educational counselling, most frequently the mother-in-law or the expectant father. Most studies (n = 14) required one-to-one counselling between a healthcare worker and a mother, and 12 interventions involved group counselling for mothers and occasionally family members; the remaining seven incorporated components of both counselling methods. Our analyses show that community health educational interventions had a significant impact on reducing overall neonatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.96; random-effects model; 26 studies; n = 553,111; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), early neonatal mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84; random-effects model; 15 studies that included 3 subsets from 3 studies; n = 321,588; I² = 86%; very low-quality evidence), late neonatal mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; random-effects model; 11 studies; n = 186,643; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), and perinatal mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.91; random-effects model; 15 studies; n = 262,613; I² = 81%; very low-quality evidence). Moreover, community health educational interventions increased utilisation of any antenatal care (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22; random-effects model; 18 studies; n = 307,528; I² = 96%) and initiation of breastfeeding (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.77; random-effects model; 19 studies; n = 126,375; I² = 99%). In contrast, community health educational interventions were found to have a non-significant impact on use of modern contraceptives (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.41; random-effects model; 3 studies; n = 22,237; I² = 80%); presence of skilled birth attendance at birth (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.25; random-effects model; 10 studies; n = 117,870; I² = 97%); utilisation of clean delivery kits (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.71 to 27.76; random-effects model; 2 studies; n = 17,087; I² = 98%); and care-seeking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27; random-effects model; 7 studies; n = 46,154; I² = 93%). Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted in seven studies demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness for intervention packages ranged between USD 910 and USD 11,975 for newborn lives saved and newborn deaths averted. For averted disability-adjusted life-year, costs ranged from USD 79 to USD 146, depending on the intervention strategy; for cost per year of lost lives averted, the most effective strategy was peer counsellors, and the cost was USD 33.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review offers encouraging evidence on the value of integrating packages of interventions with educational components delivered by a range of community workers in group settings in LMICs, with groups consisting of mothers, and additional education for family members, for improved neonatal survival, especially early and late neonatal survival.
在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs),卫生服务利用不足,多项研究报告称,在家庭、卫生机构或医院对母亲进行健康教育后,新生儿结局有所改善。然而,评估提供新生儿护理的健康教育策略,如一对一咨询或通过同伴或支持小组进行的团体咨询,或由卫生专业人员提供的咨询,需要对方法设计和质量进行严格评估,以及评估不同卫生系统中的成本效益、可负担性、可持续性和可重复性。
比较社区健康教育策略与无策略或现有健康教育方法在LMICs中对孕产妇和新生儿护理的影响,特别是在产前和/或产后期间在社区环境中向母亲或其家庭成员提供的健康教育,在改善新生儿健康和生存方面的有效性(即新生儿死亡率、新生儿发病率、获得医疗保健的机会和成本)。
我们使用Cochrane新生儿的标准检索策略,检索Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL;2017年第4期)、通过PubMed检索的MEDLINE(1966年至2017年5月2日)、Embase(1980年至2017年5月2日)以及护理和联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)(1982年至2017年5月2日)。我们还检索了临床试验数据库、会议论文集以及检索到的文章的参考文献列表,以查找随机对照试验和半随机试验。
基于社区的随机对照试验、整群随机试验或半随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据质量,并编制“结果总结”表。
我们纳入了本综述中的33项原始试验(在62篇单独文章中报道),这些试验在非洲以及中美洲和南美洲进行,大多数报道来自亚洲,特别是印度、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国。在提供的33项社区教育干预措施中,16项在教育咨询中纳入了家庭成员,最常见的是岳母或准父亲。大多数研究(n = 14)要求医护人员与母亲之间进行一对一咨询,12项干预措施涉及对母亲以及偶尔对家庭成员进行团体咨询;其余7项纳入了两种咨询方法的组成部分。我们的分析表明,社区健康教育干预措施对降低总体新生儿死亡率(风险比(RR)0.87,95%置信区间(CI)0.78至0.96;随机效应模型;26项研究;n = 553,111;I² = 88%;极低质量证据)、早期新生儿死亡率(RR 0.74,95%CI 0.66至0.84;随机效应模型;15项研究,其中包括来自3项研究的3个子集;n = 321,588;I² = 86%;极低质量证据)、晚期新生儿死亡率(RR 0.54,95%CI 0.40至0.74;随机效应模型;11项研究;n = 186,643;I² = 88%;极低质量证据)和围产期死亡率(RR 0.83,95%CI 0.75至0.91;随机效应模型;15项研究;n = 262,613;I² = 81%;极低质量证据)有显著影响。此外,社区健康教育干预措施增加了任何产前护理的利用率(RR 1.16,95%CI 1.11至1.22;随机效应模型;18项研究;n = 307,528;I² = 96%)和母乳喂养的开始率(RR 1.56,95%CI 1.37至1.77;随机效应模型;19项研究;n = 126,375;I² = 99%)。相比之下,发现社区健康教育干预措施对现代避孕药具的使用(RR 1.10,95%CI 0.86至1.41;随机效应模型;3项研究;n = 22,237;I² = 80%)、分娩时熟练接生人员的在场情况(RR 1.09,95%CI 0.94至1.25;随机效应模型;10项研究;n = 117,870;I² = 97%)、清洁分娩包的使用(RR 4.44,95%CI
0.71至27.76;随机效应模型;2项研究;n = 17,087;I² = 98%)以及寻求护理(RR 1.11,95%CI 0.97至1.27;随机效应模型;7项研究;n = 46,154;I² = 93%)没有显著影响。在七项研究中进行的成本效益分析表明,干预套餐的成本效益范围为挽救新生儿生命和避免新生儿死亡的910美元至11,975美元。对于避免的残疾调整生命年,成本范围为79美元至146美元,具体取决于干预策略;对于避免的每年丧失生命成本,最有效的策略是同伴咨询,成本为33美元。
本综述提供了令人鼓舞的证据,证明在LMICs中,将一系列社区工作者在团体环境中提供的干预措施与教育成分相结合具有价值,团体由母亲组成,并为家庭成员提供额外教育,可改善新生儿生存,特别是早期和晚期新生儿生存。