Cited by 72Global Maternal and Child HealthNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Use of A clean delivery kit and factors associated with cord infection and puerperal sepsis in mwanza, Tanzania

Winani, Samson, Wood, Siri, Coffey, Patricia, Chirwa, Tobias, Mosha, Frank, Changalucha, John·2007·Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health

Abstract

Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of an intervention that incorporated education about the “six cleans” with the use of a clean delivery kit in preventing cord infection and puerperal sepsis. A stepped‐wedge, cross‐sectional study was conducted in 10 surveillance sites across two rural districts of Mwanza Region, Tanzania. A total of 3262 pregnant women between the ages of 17 and 45 years were enrolled in the study. Village health workers administered questionnaires to each mother at 5 days postpartum and inspected the infants'umbilical cord stumps for signs of infection. Newborns whose mothers used the delivery kit were 13.1 times less likely to develop cord infection than infants whose mothers did not use the kit. Furthermore, women who used the kit for delivery were 3.2 times less likely to develop puerperal sepsis than women who did not use the kit. Women who bathed before delivery were 2.6 times less likely to develop puerperal sepsis than women who did not bathe, and their infants were 3.9 times less likely to develop cord infection. Single‐use delivery kits, when combined with education about clean delivery, can have a positive impact on the health of women and their newborns by significantly decreasing the likelihood of developing puerperal sepsis or cord infection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmwh.2006.09.004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 72

Authors
Winani, S., Wood, S., Coffey, P., Chirwa, T., Mosha, F., & Changalucha, J.
Affiliations
  • Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (US)
  • University of London (GB)
  • National Institute for Medical Research (TZ)
Venue
Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01-02
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
37-43
ISSN
  • 1526-9523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-2011
OpenAlex
W2140777989
Cited by
72
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Midwifery & Women s Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Neonatal and Maternal Infections
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
umbilical infection, puerperal fever, maternal hygiene, postpartum infection prevention, neonatal infection prevention, Mwanza, Tanzania
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Home Childbirth, Humans, Infant Welfare, Infant, Newborn, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Maternal Welfare, Midwifery, Pregnancy, Preventive Health Services, Puerperal Infection, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rural Population, Tanzania, Umbilical Cord, Nursing Methodology Research, Infection Control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review