Cited by 122Global Maternal and Child HealthMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Randomised comparison of two household survey modules for measuring stillbirths and neonatal deaths in five countries: the Every Newborn-INDEPTH study

Open access
Akuze, Joseph, Blencowe, Hannah, Waiswa, Peter, Baschieri, Angela, Gordeev, Vladimir S, Kwesiga, Doris, Fisker, Ane B, Thysen, Sanne M +48 more·2020·The Lancet Global Health

Abstract

Background An estimated 5·1 million stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur annually. Household surveys, most notably the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), run in more than 90 countries and are the main data source from the highest burden regions, but data-quality concerns remain. We aimed to compare two questionnaires: a full birth history module with additional questions on pregnancy losses (FBH+; the current DHS standard) and a full pregnancy history module (FPH), which collects information on all livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and neonatal deaths. Methods Women residing in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites within the INDEPTH Network (Bandim in Guinea-Bissau, Dabat in Ethiopia, IgangaMayuge in Uganda, Matlab in Bangladesh, and Kintampo in Ghana) were randomly assigned (individually) to be interviewed using either FBH+ or FPH between July 28, 2017, and Aug 13, 2018. The primary outcomes were stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the 5 years before the survey interview (measured by stillbirth rate [SBR] and neonatal mortality rate [NMR]) and mean time taken to complete the maternity history section of the questionnaire. We also assessed between-site heterogeneity. This study is registered with the Research Registry, 4720. Findings 69 176 women were allocated to be interviewed by either FBH+ (n=34 805) or FPH (n=34 371). The mean time taken to complete FPH (10·5 min) was longer than for FBH+ (9·1 min; p<0·0001). Using FPH, the estimated SBR was 17·4 per 1000 total births, 21% (95% CI −10 to 62) higher than with FBH+ (15·2 per 1000 total births; p=0·20) in the 5 years preceding the survey interview. There was strong evidence of between-site heterogeneity ( I 2 =80·9%; p<0·0001), with SBR higher for FPH than for FBH+ in four of five sites. The estimated NMR did not differ between modules (FPH 25·1 per 1000 livebirths vs FBH+ 25·4 per 1000 livebirths), with no evidence of between-site heterogeneity ( I 2 =0·7%; p=0·40). Interpretation FPH takes an average of 1·4 min longer to complete than does FBH+, but has the potential to increase reporting of stillbirths in high burden contexts. The between-site heterogeneity we found might reflect variations in interviewer training and survey implementation, emphasising the importance of interviewer skills, training, and consistent implementation in data quality. Funding Children's Investment Fund Foundation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30044-9

Cites

20 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Perinatal loss is characterized by an unexpected loss through miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death.

    “It is characterized by an unexpected loss through miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death.2”

    From Bereavement care guidelines used in health care facilities immediately following perinatal loss: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Results section describes perinatal mortality as including stillbirths and early neonatal deaths. The paper mentions miscarriages in the Discussion as a possible misclassification of stillbirths, but it does not define perinatal loss as including miscarriage or characterize these losses as unexpected. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akuze, J., Blencowe, H., Waiswa, P., Baschieri, A., Gordeev, V. S., Kwesiga, D., Fisker, A. B., Thysen, S. M., Rodrigues, A., Biks, G. A., Abebe, S. M., Gelaye, K. A., Mengistu, M. Y., Geremew, B. M., Delele, T. G., Tesega, A. K., Yitayew, T. A., Kasasa, S., Galiwango, E., Natukwatsa, D., Kajungu, D., Enuameh, Y. A., Nettey, O. E., Dzabeng, F., Amenga-Etego, S., Newton, S. K., Tawiah, C., Asante, K. P., Owusu-Agyei, S., Alam, N., Haider, M. M., Imam, A., Mahmud, K., Cousens, S., Lawn, J. E., Ayele, T. A., Bisetegn, T. B., Delwar, N., Gezie, L. D., Gyezaho, C., Kaija, J., Machiyama, K., Manu, G., Manu, A. A., Martins, J. S., Melese, T., Alam, S. S., Nareeba, T., Hardy, V. P., Zandoh, C., Arnold, F., Byass, P., Croft, T., Herbst, K., Kishor, S. K., & Serbanescu, F.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Makerere University (UG)
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • University of Gondar (ET)
  • Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (GH)
  • Kintampo Health Research Centre (GH)
  • International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (BD)
Corresponding author
Akuze, Joseph
Venue
The Lancet Global Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-04
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e555-e566
ISSN
2214-109X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3012086947
Cited by
121
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 2
FWCI
24.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Children's Investment Fund Foundation
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
stillbirth, neonatal mortality, questionnaire comparison, Demographic and Health Surveys, miscarriage, survey data quality, questionnaire length, health and demographic surveillance system, maternal mortality surveillance, MATLAB, Kintampo
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Female, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Humans, Infant, Infant Mortality, Infant, Newborn, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Uganda, Reproducibility of Results, Stillbirth, Young Adult

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