Development of a Comprehensive Antenatal Risk Assessment Tool to Predict Adverse Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes in Rural Areas: An Exploratory Study: An exploratory study
-
Sakthi Arasu
,
Geethu Maria Joseph
,
Lijiya Mathew
,
Josephine S Antoniammal
,
Rajitha K Manolas
,
Avita Rose Johnson
Abstract
Objective: To develop a comprehensive antenatal risk assessment tool to predict adverse maternal and early perinatal outcomes in a rural setting.
Materials and methods: Cross-sectional study among women admitted for delivery in a rural maternity hospital, south India. Risk factors from Rotterdam Reproductive Risk Reduction (R4U) scorecard and social factors relevant to Indian rural context were included in questionnaire. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were obtained from in-patient records. Logistic regression of risk factors associated with adverse outcomes and weighted scores assigned using beta-coefficients. Cut-off score to predict adverse outcome was derived using Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (ROC Curve) and Likelihood ratios.
Results: Adjusted odds for adverse outcome highest for small for gestational age by ultrasound scan [OR=7.4 (1.4-36.5)], tobacco chewing [OR=5.6 (1.8–28.5)] and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy [OR=3.5 (1.9-9.6)]. After assigning weighted scores, the 74-item antenatal risk assessment tool had a maximum possible score of 86. Risk score was calculated for all subjects. Cut-off score to predict adverse outcome was 4, using ROC curve, with a sensitivity of 98%, a specificity of 21% and positive likelihood ratio of 1.23 (1.10-1.37).
Conclusion: This comprehensive antenatal risk assessment tool is easy to administer, specific to rural areas and can help community-level workers to screen, monitor, and refer high risk pregnancies for further management to prevent adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. This may be considered a prototype towards developing more robust antenatal risk screening and outcome prediction in rural settings.
2. World Health Organization (WHO). Progress towards the SDGs : A selection of data from World Health Statistics 2018 SDG3 : Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all ages 2018.
3. Registrar General of India. Special Bulletin on Maternal Mortality in India: 2014-16. Sample Registration System 2018.
4. Montgomery AL, Ram U, Kumar R, Jha P; Million Death Study Collaborators. Maternal mortality in India: causes and healthcare service use based on a nationally representative survey. PLoS One 2014; 9: e83331.
5. Office of the Registrar General. Sample registration system statistical report 2018. New Delhi; 2018.
6. Sankar MJ, Neogi SB, Sharma J, Chauhan M, Srivastava R, Prabhakar PK, et al. State of newborn health in India. J Perinatol 2016; 36: S3–8.
7. Aoyama K, D’souza R, Pinto R, Ray JG, Hill A, Scales DC, et al. Risk prediction models for maternal mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0208563.
8. Vos AA, van Veen MJ, Birnie E, Denktaş S, Steegers EAP, Bonsel GJ. An instrument for broadened risk assessment in antenatal health care including non-medical issues. Int J Integr Care 2015; 15: e002.
9. Balaji K, Sankar S, Nandagopal B. Low birth weight of newborns: magnitude of the problem seen in a 100 bed hospital of a rural area in vellore district, Tamil Nadu (India). Indian J Community Med 2010; 35: 362-4.
10. Aggarwal OP, Bhasin SK, Sharma AK, Chhabra P, Aggarwal K, Rajoura OP. A New Instrument (Scale) for Measuring the Socioeconomic Status of a Family : Preliminary Study. Indian J Community Med 2005; 30:111–4.
11. Government of India, Ministry of Houusing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. State of Housing in India: A Statistical Compendium 2013.
12. Drukker L, Hants Y, Farkash R, Ruchlemer R, Samueloff A, Grisaru-Granovsky S. Iron deficiency anemia at admission for labor and delivery is associated with an increased risk for Cesarean section and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Transfusion 2015; 55: 2799–806.
13. Bora R, Sable C, Wolfson J, Boro K, Rao R. Prevalence of anemia in pregnant women and its effect on neonatal outcomes in Northeast India. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27: 887–91.
14. Snijder CA, Brand T, Jaddoe V, Hofman A, Mackenbach JP, Steegers EAP, et al. Physically demanding work, fetal growth and the risk of adverse birth outcomes. The Generation R Study. Occup Environ Med 2012; 69: 543–50.
15. Lee LJ, Symanski E, Lupo PJ, Tinker SC, Razzaghi H, Chan W, et al. Role of maternal occupational physical activity and psychosocial stressors on adverse birth outcomes. Occup Environ Med 2017; 74: 192–9.
16. Labrique AB, Pereira S, Christian P, Murthy N, Bartlett L, Mehl G. Pregnancy registration systems can enhance health systems, increase accountability and reduce mortality. Reprod Health Matters 2012; 20: 113–7.
17. Campbell EE, Gilliland J, Dworatzek PDN, De Vrijer B, Penava D, Seabrook JA. Socioeconomic status and adverse birth outcomes: A population-based Canadian sample. J Biosoc Sci 2018; 50: 102–13.
18. Kader M, Perera NKP. Socio-economic and nutritional determinants of low birth weight in India. N Am J Med Sci 2014; 6: 302–8.
19. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Morris JM, Ford JB, Henderson-Smart DJ. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: a population based -study. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 332–5.
20. Ntui AN, Jolly PE, Carson A, Turpin CA, Zhang K, Berhanu T. Antenatal care attendance, a surrogate for pregnancy outcome? The case of Kumasi, Ghana
HHS Public Access. Matern Child Health J 2014; 18: 1085–94.
21. Raatikainen K, Heiskanen N, Heinonen S. Under-attending free antenatal care is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. BMC Public Health 2007; 7: 268.
22. Şahin Uysal N, Gülümser Ç, Bilgin Yanık F. Maternal and perinatal characteristics of small-for-gestational-age newborns: Ten-year experience of a single center.
J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2017; 18: 90-95.
23. Miyake Y, Tanaka K, Arakawa M. Active and passive maternal smoking during pregnancy and birth outcomes: The Kyushu Okinawa Maternal and Child Health Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13: 157.
24. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW). India- National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) 2015-16. Report 2018.
25. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ICF. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015-16: India. Mumbai: IIPS, 2017.
26. Posthumus AG, Birnie E, van Veen MJ, Steegers EA, Bonsel GJ. An antenatal prediction model for adverse birth outcomes in an urban population: The contribution of medical and non-medical risks. Midwifery 2016; 38: 78–86.
27. Talsania NJ, Lala MK. Evaluation of antenatal risk scoring in a preterm birth prevention and perinatal loss. Indian J Matern child Health 1994; 5: 5–9.
28. Bansal P, Verma D, BansaL A, Verma A. Prenatal risk score in high risk pregnancy cases and perinatal outcome: a study from South India. Int J Reprod Contraception Obstet Gynecol 2016; 5: 3889–92.
29. Ezz- Eldin ZM, Hamid TA, Youssef MR, Nabil Hel-D. Clinical Risk Index for Babies (CRIB II) Scoring System in Prediction of Mortality in Premature Babies. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9: SC08-11.
30. Rashmi A, Nrayanamurthy MR, Vidya GS, Vidyalakshmi K, Renuka M. Risk factors for preterm birth: a community based longitudinal study in rural Mysuru, Karnataka, India. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health 2016; 3: 3576–80.
31. Johnson K, Posner SF, Biermann J, Cordero JF, Atrash HK, Parker CS, et al. Recommendations to improve preconception health and health care--United States. A report of the CDC/ATSDR Preconception Care Work Group and the Select Panel on Preconception Care. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006; 55: 1–23.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 14, No 4 (December 2020) | |
| Section | Original Articles | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v14i4.5208 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Score Card Risk Prediction Pregnancy Perinatal Outcomes | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
