Factors influencing referrals for ultrasound-diagnosed complications during prenatal care in five low and middle income countries

Holly L Franklin, Waseem Mirza, David L Swanson, Jamie E Newman, Robert L Goldenberg, David Muyodi, Lester Figueroa, Robert O Nathan, Jonathan O Swanson, Nicole Goldsmith, Nancy Kanaiza, Farnaz Naqvi, Irma Sayury Pineda, Walter López-Gomez, Dorothy Hamsumonde, Victor Lokomba Bolamba, Elizabeth V Fogleman, Sarah Saleem, Fabian Esamai, Edward A Liechty, Ana L Garces, Nancy F Krebs, K Michael Hambidge, Elwyn Chomba, Musaku Mwenechanya, Waldemar A Carlo, Antoinette Tshefu, Adrien Lokangaka, Carl L Bose, Marion Koso-Thomas, Menachem Miodovnik, Elizabeth M McClure, Holly L Franklin, Waseem Mirza, David L Swanson, Jamie E Newman, Robert L Goldenberg, David Muyodi, Lester Figueroa, Robert O Nathan, Jonathan O Swanson, Nicole Goldsmith, Nancy Kanaiza, Farnaz Naqvi, Irma Sayury Pineda, Walter López-Gomez, Dorothy Hamsumonde, Victor Lokomba Bolamba, Elizabeth V Fogleman, Sarah Saleem, Fabian Esamai, Edward A Liechty, Ana L Garces, Nancy F Krebs, K Michael Hambidge, Elwyn Chomba, Musaku Mwenechanya, Waldemar A Carlo, Antoinette Tshefu, Adrien Lokangaka, Carl L Bose, Marion Koso-Thomas, Menachem Miodovnik, Elizabeth M McClure

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound during antenatal care (ANC) is proposed as a strategy for increasing hospital deliveries for complicated pregnancies and improving maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. The First Look study was a cluster-randomized trial conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia to evaluate the impact of ANC-ultrasound on these outcomes. An additional survey was conducted to identify factors influencing women with complicated pregnancies to attend referrals for additional care.

Methods: Women who received referral due to ANC ultrasound findings participated in structured interviews to characterize their experiences. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics were used to examine differences between women who attended the referral and women who did not. Sonographers' exam findings were compared to referred women's recall.

Results: Among 700 referred women, 510 (71%) attended the referral. Among referred women, 97% received a referral card to present at the hospital, 91% were told where to go in the hospital, and 64% were told that the hospital was expecting them. The referred women who were told who to see at the hospital (88% vs 66%), where to go (94% vs 82%), or what should happen, were more likely to attend their referral (68% vs 56%). Barriers to attending referrals were cost, transportation, and distance. Barriers after reaching the hospital were substantial. These included not connecting with an appropriate provider, not knowing where to go, and being told to return later. These barriers at the hospital often led to an unsuccessful referral.

Conclusions: Our study found that ultrasound screening at ANC alone does not adequately address barriers to referrals. Better communication between the sonographer and the patient increases the likelihood of a completed referral. These types of communication include describing the ultrasound findings, including the reason for the referral, to the mother and staff; providing a referral card; describing where to go in the hospital; and explaining the procedures at the hospital. Thus, there are three levels of communication that need to be addressed to increase completion of appropriate referrals-communication between the sonographer and the woman, the sonographer and the clinic staff, and the sonographer and the hospital.

Trial registration: NCT01990625 .

Keywords: Antenatal care; Delivery; Hospital referral; Low-middle income countries; Pregnancy complication; Ultrasound.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This trial was reviewed and approved by the institutional review committee at Columbia University (FWA00002636; New York, NY) (approved 9/30/2013), RTI International (FWA00003331 Durham, NC) (approved 7/19/2013) and the ethics review committees at Aga Khan University (FWA00001177; Karachi Pakistan) (approved 8/7/14), Kinshasa School of Public Health (FWA000003581 Kinshasa, DRC) (approved 2/13/14), Universidad Francisco Marroquin Facultad de Medicina (FWA000003581 Guatemala City, Guatemala) (approved 12/06/13), Moi University (FWA000003128; Eldoret, Kenya) (approved 6/10/14), and the University of Zambia (FWA00000338; Lusaka, Zambia) (approved 2/13/14).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Bulatao RA, Ross JA. Which health services reduce maternal mortality? Evidence from ratings of maternal health services. Tropical Med Int Health. 2003;8:710–721. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2003.01083.x.
    1. World Health Organization. Recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. 2016. . Accessed 3 Jan 2018.
    1. Lee A, Lawn J, Cousens S, Kumar V, Osrin D, Bhutta Z, et al. Linking families and facilities for care at birth: what works to avert intrapartum-related deaths. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107(Suppl):S65–S88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.012.
    1. Papp Z, Fekete T. The evolving role of ultrasound in obstetrics/gynecology practice. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82:339–346. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00224-8.
    1. Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Gyte GM. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in high-risk pregnancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD007529.
    1. Alfirevic Z, Stampalija T, Medley N. Fetal and umbilical Doppler ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD001450.
    1. Bricker L, Medley N, Pratt JJ. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;4:CD001451.
    1. Stampalija T, Gyte GM, Alfirevic Z. Utero-placental Doppler ultrasound for improving pregnancy outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;2:CD008363.
    1. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:CD007058.
    1. Shah S, Bellows BA, Adedipe AA, Totten JE, Backlund BH, Sajed D. Perceived barrier in the use of ultrasound in developing countries. Crit Ultrasound J. 2015;7:11. doi: 10.1186/s13089-015-0028-2.
    1. Sippel S, Muruganandan K, Levine A, Shah S. Review article: use of ultrasound in the developing world. Int J Emerg Med. 2011;4:72. doi: 10.1186/1865-1380-4-72.
    1. Kawooya G, Nathan RO, Swanson J, Swanson DL, Namulema E, et al. Impact of introducing routine antenatal ultrasound services on reproductive health indicators in Mpigi District, Central Uganda. Ultrasound Q. 2015;31:285–289. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000142.
    1. Dalmacion GV, Reyles RT, Habana AE, Cruz LMV, Chua MC, Ngo AT, et al. Handheld ultrasound to avert maternal and neonatal deaths in 2 regions of the Philippines: an iBuntis® intervention study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:32. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1658-8.
    1. Kim TE, Singh K, Moran A, Armbruster D, Kozuki N. Obstetric ultrasound use in low and middle income countries: a narrative review. Reprod Health. 2018;15:129. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0571-y.
    1. McClure EM, Nathan RO, Saleem S, Esamai F, Garces A, Chomba E, et al. First look: a cluster-randomized trial of ultrasound to improve pregnancy outcomes in low income country settings. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-73.
    1. Goldenberg RL, Nathan RO, Swanson DL, Saleem S, Mirza W, Esamai F, et al. First look: routine antenatal ultrasound in low and middle-income countries: first look - a cluster randomized trial. BJOG. 2018;125:1591–1599. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15287.
    1. Nathan RO, Swanson JO, Swanson DL, McClure EM, Bolamba VL, Lokangaka A, et al. Evaluation of focused obstetric ultrasound examinations by health care personnel in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan, and Zambia. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46:210–215. doi: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2016.11.001.
    1. Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health Research Maternal Newborn Health Registry. . Accessed 10 October 2018.
    1. Manasyan A, Saleem S, Koso-Thomas M, Althabe F, Pasha O, Chomba E, et al. Assessment of obstetric and neonatal health services in developing country health facilities. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30:787–794. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1333409.
    1. Blood E, Spratt KF. Disagreement on agreement: two alternative agreement coefficients. SAS Global Forum, 2007; Paper 186–2007. . Accessed 4 August 2017.
    1. Mensah YB, Nkyekyer K, Mensah K. The Ghanaian women’s experience and perception of ultrasound use in antenatal care. Ghana Med J. 2014;48:31–38. doi: 10.4314/gmj.v48i1.5.
    1. Gonzaga MA, Kiguli-Malwadde E, Francis B, Rosemary B. Current knowledge, attitudes, and practices of expectant women towards routine sonography in pregnancy at Naguru health Centre, Uganda. Pan Afr Med J. 2009;3:18.
    1. Anastasi E, Borchert M, Campbell OMR, Sondorp E, Kaducu F, Hill O, et al. Losing women along the path to safe motherhood: why is there such as gap between women’s use of antenatal care and skilled birth attendance? A mixed methods study in northern Uganda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:287. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0695-9.
    1. Cherniak W, Geoffrey A, Meaney C, Kong LY, Malhame I, Pace R, et al. Effectiveness of advertising availability of prenatal ultrasound on uptake of antenatal care in rural Uganda: A cluster randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0175400. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175440.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever