Premium
Stillbirths and neonatal mortality as outcomes
Author(s) -
Goldenberg Robert L.,
McClure Elizabeth M.,
Jobe Alan H.,
KamathRayne Beena D.,
Gravette Michael G.,
Rubens Craig E.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.06.020
Subject(s) - medicine , neonatal death , neonatal mortality , infant mortality , neonatal resuscitation , live birth , public health , obstetrics , pediatrics , population , demography , resuscitation , pregnancy , environmental health , fetus , emergency medicine , nursing , genetics , sociology , biology
Several recent studies in low‐resource countries have claimed that training in—and increased use of—newborn resuscitation resulted in reduced stillbirth rates. In the present article, we explore the ability of various types of birth attendant in some low‐resource country locations to gather data that accurately differentiate a stillbirth from a live birth/early neonatal death. We conclude that, in many situations, it cannot be determined whether the infant was a stillbirth or a live birth/early neonatal death, and therefore the least‐biased description of study outcomes includes a combined stillbirth and live birth/neonatal death outcome. However, because defining the burden of stillbirth and neonatal death is important from a public health perspective, every effort should be made, in low‐income countries and elsewhere, to distinguish between stillbirths and live births/neonatal deaths and to report the results independently.