[X] Close
You are about to erase all the values you have customized, search history, page format, etc.
Click here to RESET all values       Click here to GO BACK without resetting any value
Item 1 of about 1
1. Sibley LM, Sipe TA, Barry D: Traditional birth attendant training for improving health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2012 Aug 15;(8):CD005460
ClinicalTrials.gov. clinical trials - ClinicalTrials.gov .

  • [Source] The source of this record is MEDLINE®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
  • [Title] Traditional birth attendant training for improving health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes.
  • BACKGROUND: Between the 1970s and 1990s, the World Health Organization promoted traditional birth attendant (TBA) training as one strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality.
  • To date, evidence in support of TBA training is limited but promising for some mortality outcomes.
  • OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of TBA training on health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes.
  • SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 June 2012), citation alerts from our work and reference lists of studies identified in the search.
  • SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT), comparing trained versus untrained TBAs, additionally trained versus trained TBAs, or women cared for/living in areas served by TBAs.
  • DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data in the original and first update review.
  • ¬†Three authors and one external reviewer independently assessed study quality and two extracted data in this second update.
  • MAIN RESULTS: Six studies involving over 1345 TBAs, more than 32,000 women and approximately 57,000 births that examined the effects of TBA training for trained versus untrained TBAs (one study) and additionally trained TBA training versus trained TBAs (five studies) are included in this review.
  • These studies consist of individual randomised trials (two studies) and cluster-randomised trials (four studies).
  • The primary outcomes across the sample of studies were perinatal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths (early, late and overall).Trained TBAs versus untrained TBAs: one cluster-randomised trial found a significantly lower perinatal death rate in the trained versus untrained TBA clusters (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.83), lower stillbirth rate (adjusted OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83) and lower neonatal death rate (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82).
  • This study also found the maternal death rate was lower but not significant (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.22).Additionally trained TBAs versus trained TBAs: three large cluster-randomised trials compared TBAs who received additional training in initial steps of resuscitation, including bag-valve-mask ventilation, with TBAs who had received basic training in safe, clean delivery and immediate newborn care.
  • Basic training included mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (two studies) or bag-valve-mask resuscitation (one study).
  • There was no significant difference in the perinatal death rate between the intervention and control clusters (one study, adjusted OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02) and no significant difference in late neonatal death rate between intervention and control clusters (one study, adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11).
  • The neonatal death rate, however, was 45% lower in intervention compared with the control clusters (one study, 22.8% versus 40.2%, adjusted RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92).We conducted a meta-analysis on two outcomes: stillbirths and early neonatal death.
  • There was no significant difference between the additionally trained TBAs versus trained TBAs for stillbirths (two studies, mean weighted adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28) or early neonatal death rate (three studies, mean weighted adjusted RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).
  • ¬† AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results are promising for some outcomes (perinatal death, stillbirth and neonatal death).
  • However, most outcomes are reported in only one study.
  • A lack of contrast in training in the intervention and control clusters may have contributed to the null result for stillbirths and an insufficient number of studies may have contributed to the failure to achieve significance for early neonatal deaths.
  • Despite the additional studies included in this updated systematic review, there remains insufficient evidence to establish the potential of TBA training to improve peri-neonatal mortality.
  • [MeSH-major] Midwifery / education. Pregnancy Outcome / epidemiology
  • [MeSH-minor] Female. Health Behavior. Humans. Infant Mortality. Infant, Newborn. Maternal Mortality. Perinatal Mortality. Pregnancy. Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic. Stillbirth / epidemiology

  • Genetic Alliance. consumer health - Pregnancy.
  • [Email] Email this result item
    Email the results to the following email address:   [X] Close
  • [Cites] J Trop Med Hyg. 1990 Feb;93(1):58-66 [2304134.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 1989 Sep 2;2(8662):522-5 [2570234.001]
  • [Cites] Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1994 Sep-Oct;88(5):590-3 [7992349.001]
  • [Cites] J Trop Med Hyg. 1994 Aug;97(4):244-8 [8064949.001]
  • [Cites] Stud Fam Plann. 2000 Dec;31(4):309-24 [11198068.001]
  • [Cites] J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001 Jul-Aug;46(4):210-6 [11603632.001]
  • [Cites] Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2002 Jan;11(1):15-23 [11858126.001]
  • [Cites] Health Care Women Int. 2001 Sep;22(6):569-83 [12141848.001]
  • [Cites] J Midwifery Womens Health. 2003 Jan-Feb;48(1):10-8 [12589301.001]
  • [Cites] Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;17(2):132-42 [12675779.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2003 Apr 26;361(9367):1418-23 [12727395.001]
  • [Cites] Bull World Health Organ. 1994;72(6):897-905 [7867135.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995 Jun;48 Suppl:S83-94 [7672178.001]
  • [Cites] BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34 [9310563.001]
  • [Cites] Stud Fam Plann. 1997 Sep;28(3):203-14 [9322336.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2005 Mar 5-11;365(9462):891-900 [15752534.001]
  • [Cites] N Engl J Med. 2005 May 19;352(20):2091-9 [15901862.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jul;90(1):51-5 [15919088.001]
  • [Cites] Health Policy Plan. 2005 Sep;20(5):328-36 [16113403.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2006 Apr 1;367(9516):1066-74 [16581405.001]
  • [Cites] Stat Med. 2006 Oct 30;25(20):3443-57 [16345038.001]
  • [Cites] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD005460 [17636799.001]
  • [Cites] J Health Popul Nutr. 2009 Feb;27(1):53-61 [19248648.001]
  • [Cites] Indian J Pediatr. 2009 Jan;76(1):33-6 [19127353.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Oct;107 Suppl 1:S89-112 [19815200.001]
  • [Cites] N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):614-23 [20164485.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1193-202 [20207412.001]
  • [Cites] Afr Health Sci. 2010 Mar;10(1):71-4 [20811528.001]
  • [Cites] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(11):CD007754 [21069697.001]
  • [Cites] Arch Dis Child. 2010 Dec;95(12):1039-46 [20980274.001]
  • [Cites] BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:82 [21156060.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 2011 Jan 29;377(9763):403-12 [21239052.001]
  • [Cites] BMJ. 2011;342:d346 [21292711.001]
  • [Cites] Midwifery. 2011 Apr;27(2):229-36 [19632016.001]
  • [Cites] Pediatrics. 2011 May;127(5):e1182-90 [21502233.001]
  • [Cites] Health Care Women Int. 2011 Jun;32(6):474-91 [21547802.001]
  • [Cites] Eval Program Plann. 2011 Aug;34(3):254-65 [21555049.001]
  • [Cites] Trials. 2011;12:128 [21595902.001]
  • [Cites] BMC Med. 2011;9:93 [21816050.001]
  • [Cites] Lancet. 1999 Dec 4;354(9194):1955-61 [10622298.001]
  • [Cites] J Perinatol. 1999 Sep;19(6 Pt 1):432-5 [10685273.001]
  • [Cites] J Perinatol. 2000 Apr-May;20(3):184-8 [10802845.001]
  • [Cites] Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Oct;83(1):121-2 [14511886.001]
  • [Cites] Midwifery. 2004 Mar;20(1):51-60 [15020027.001]
  • [Cites] J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004 Jul-Aug;49(4):298-305 [15236709.001]
  • [Cites] Soc Sci Med. 2004 Oct;59(8):1757-68 [15279931.001]
  • [Cites] J Trop Pediatr. 1982 Aug;28(4):163-5 [7131620.001]
  • [UpdateOf] Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD005460 [17636799.001]
  • (PMID = 22895949.001).
  • [ISSN] 1469-493X
  • [Journal-full-title] The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
  • [ISO-abbreviation] Cochrane Database Syst Rev
  • [Language] eng
  • [Grant] United Kingdom / Department of Health / / 10/4001/02; United Kingdom / Department of Health / / SRP/10/4001/02
  • [Publication-type] Journal Article; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review
  • [Publication-country] England
  • [Other-IDs] NLM/ EMS57453; NLM/ PMC4158424
  •  go-up   go-down


Advertisement





Advertisement