A review of methodology and tools for measuring maternal mortality in humanitarian settings
Open accessAbstract
Estimation of maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in humanitarian settings ('settings of conflict, displacement and natural disaster') is challenging, particularly where communities have dissolved and geographical areas are inaccessible. During humanitarian events, the reproduction of maternal mortality figures by the media is common, and are often based on inaccurate reports. In light of such uncertainties and challenges, the aim of this article was to review and appraise the methodology and data collection tools used to measure MMR in humanitarian settings. A critical review of both grey and peer-review publications was conducted, focussing on articles published from January 1995 until December 2016. In the final review, articles that provided an estimate of MMR from a humanitarian setting were included. The assessment of study quality was based on an adapted framework for the quality of mortality studies in humanitarian settings. Overall, 13 peer-review publications and one grey publication were included in the final review. These were grouped according to settings: camp, clinic, household and census. Studies varied in their definition of MMR, and few studies objectively defined the humanitarian setting. Household-based studies were based on retrospective designs and on the recall of surviving family members. Although many studies attempted to purposively sample the populations afflicted, there was substantial evidence of selection bias; few studies were able to confirm the maternal deaths through medical certificates, or attempted to visit homes to re-inquire about deaths using verbal autopsy. The variation in methods and tools applied suggest that maternal mortality estimates are more likely to be markedly different from the true unknown level. The implications are that a standardized methodology and tools are necessary: that are consistent in definition, use a representative sample where possible, attempt to triangulate and validate data sources, and reconfirm deaths through household visits with informant interviews.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Maternal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths are challenging to measure or estimate in humanitarian settings.
“yet maternal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths are challenging to measure or estimate in these settings [4].”
From Implementation of maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR) in humanitarian settings: insights and experiences of humanitarian health practitioners and global technical expert meeting attendees (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
The Abstract says maternal mortality is difficult to measure and that the true estimate in humanitarian settings is unknown. The paper supports the claim about maternal deaths, but the passages do not address difficulties measuring stillbirths or neonatal deaths. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- World Health Organisation. (1995) Verbal autopsies for maternal deaths. Report of a WHO Workshop. Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed online at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/61029/1/WHO_FHE_MSM_95.
- Authors
- Morgan, S. A., & Ali, M. M.
- Affiliations
- Southampton General Hospital (GB)
- World Health Organization (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Ali, Mohamed M
- Venue
- Health Policy and Planning
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-12-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1107-1117
- ISSN
- 0268-1080 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2237
- OpenAlex
- W2903936225
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Policy and Planning (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Department of Reproductive Health and Research
- WHO
- World Health Organization
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Conflict Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
- Keywords
- maternal mortality, maternal mortality ratio, humanitarian settings, conflict settings, displacement, natural disasters, verbal autopsy, selection bias, medical certificates, data triangulation, quality assessment framework
- MeSH terms
- Armed Conflicts, Data Collection, Disasters, Female, Humans, Maternal Mortality, Refugees
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