Person:

Langer, Ana

Background: Cesarean section is the only surgery for which we have nearly global population-based data. However, few surveys provide additional data related to cesarean sections. Given weaknesses in many health information systems, health planners in developing countries will likely rely on nationally representative surveys for the foreseeable future. The objective is to validate self-reported data on the emergency status of cesarean sections among women delivering in teaching hospitals in the capitals of two contrasting countries: Accra, Ghana and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (DR). Methods and Findings: This study compares hospital-based data, considered the reference standard, against women’s self-report for two definitions of emergency cesarean section based on the timing of the decision to operate and the timing of the cesarean section relative to onset of labor. Hospital data were abstracted from individual medical records, and hospital discharge interviews were conducted with women who had undergone cesarean section in two hospitals. The study assessed sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of responses to questions regarding emergency versus non-emergency cesarean section and estimated the percent of emergency cesarean sections that would be obtained from a survey, given the observed prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity from this study. Hospital data were matched with exit interviews for 659 women delivered via cesarean section for Ghana and 1,531 for the Dominican Republic. In Ghana and the Dominican Republic, sensitivity and specificity for emergency cesarean section defined by decision time were 79% and 82%, and 50% and 80%, respectively. The validity of emergency cesarean defined by operation time showed less favorable results than decision time in Ghana and slightly more favorable results in the Dominican Republic. Conclusions: Questions used in this study to identify emergency cesarean section are promising but insufficient to promote for inclusion in international survey questionnaires. Additional studies which confirm the accuracy of key facility-based indicators in advance of data collection and which use a longer recall period are warranted.

Sohni Dean and colleagues report their CHNRI exercise that developed health research priorities for effective pre-conception care in low- and middle-income countries. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Key lessons can be drawn from innovative approaches that have been implemented to ensure access to better antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC). This paper examines the successes and challenges of ANC and PNC delivery models in several settings around the world; discusses the lessons to be learned from them; and makes recommendations for future programmes. Based on this review, we conclude that close monitoring of ANC and PNC quality and delivery models, health workforce support, appropriate use of electronic technologies, integrated care, a woman-friendly perspective, and adequate infrastructure are key elements of successful programmes that benefit the health and wellbeing of women, their newborns and families. However, a full evaluation of care delivery models is needed to establish their acceptability, accessibility, availability and quality.

A comprehensive set of fully integrated anthropometric measures is needed to evaluate human growth from conception to infancy so that consistent judgments can be made about the appropriateness of fetal and infant growth. At present, there are 2 barriers to this strategy. First, descriptive reference charts, which are derived from local, unselected samples with inadequate methods and poor characterization of their putatively healthy populations, commonly are used rather than prescriptive standards. The use of prescriptive standards is justified by the extensive biologic, genetic, and epidemiologic evidence that skeletal growth is similar from conception to childhood across geographic populations, when health, nutrition, environmental, and health care needs are met. Second, clinicians currently screen fetuses, newborn infants, and infants at all levels of care with a wide range of charts and cutoff points, often with limited appreciation of the underlying population or quality of the study that generated the charts. Adding to the confusion, infants are evaluated after birth with a single prescriptive tool: the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards, which were derived from healthy, breastfed newborn infants, infants, and young children from populations that have been exposed to few growth-restricting factors. The International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century Project addressed these issues by providing international standards for gestational age estimation, first-trimester fetal size, fetal growth, newborn size for gestational age, and postnatal growth of preterm infants, all of which complement the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards conceptually, methodologically, and analytically. Hence, growth and development can now, for the first time, be monitored globally across the vital first 1000 days and all the way to 5 years of age. It is clear that an integrative approach to monitoring growth and development from pregnancy to school age is desirable, scientifically supported, and likely to improve care, referral patterns, and reporting systems. Such integration can be achieved only through the use of international growth standards, especially in increasingly diverse, mixed ancestry populations. Resistance to new scientific developments has been hugely problematic in medicine; however, we are confident that the obstetric and neonatal communities will join their pediatric colleagues worldwide in the adoption of this integrative strategy.