What you count is what you target

the implications of maternal death classification for tracking progress towards maternal mortality in developing countries

Suzanne Cross, Jacqueline S Bell, Wendy J Graham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The first target of the fifth United Nations Millennium Development Goal is to reduce maternal mortality by 75% between
1990 and 2015. This target is critically off track. Despite difficulties inherent in measuring maternal mortality, interventions aimed at reducing it must be monitored and evaluated to determine the most effective strategies in different contexts. In some contexts, the direct causes of maternal death, such as haemorrhage and sepsis, predominate and can be tackled effectively through providing access to skilled birth attendance and emergency obstetric care. In others, indirect causes of maternal death, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, make a significant contribution and require alternative interventions. Methods of planning and evaluating maternal health interventions that do not differentiate between direct and indirect maternal deaths may lead to unrealistic expectations of
effectiveness or mask progress in tackling specific causes. Furthermore, the need for additional or alternative interventions to tackle the causes of indirect maternal death may not be recognized if all-cause maternal death is used as the sole outcome indicator. This article illustrates the importance of differentiating between direct and indirect maternal deaths by analysing historical data from
England and Wales and contemporary data from Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa. The principal aim of the paper is to highlight the need to differentiate deaths in this way when evaluating maternal mortality, particularly when judging progress towards the fifth Millennium Development Goal. It is recommended that the potential effect of maternity services failing to take indirect maternal deaths
into account should be modelled.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)147-153
Number of pages7
JournalBulletin of the World Health Organization
Volume88
Issue number2
Early online date9 Oct 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2010

Fingerprint

Maternal Death
Maternal Mortality
Developing Countries
Cause of Death
Rwanda
Ghana
United Nations
Wales
Emergency Medical Services
Masks
South Africa
England
Malaria
Obstetrics
Sepsis
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
HIV
Parturition
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • maternal mortality
  • direct maternal deaths
  • indirect maternal deaths
  • monitoring and evaluation

Cite this

What you count is what you target : the implications of maternal death classification for tracking progress towards maternal mortality in developing countries. / Cross, Suzanne; Bell, Jacqueline S; Graham, Wendy J.

In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol. 88, No. 2, 02.2010, p. 147-153.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6ec26f6e19ed4d3e8028f7b18ccf81e1,
title = "What you count is what you target: the implications of maternal death classification for tracking progress towards maternal mortality in developing countries",
abstract = "The first target of the fifth United Nations Millennium Development Goal is to reduce maternal mortality by 75{\%} between 1990 and 2015. This target is critically off track. Despite difficulties inherent in measuring maternal mortality, interventions aimed at reducing it must be monitored and evaluated to determine the most effective strategies in different contexts. In some contexts, the direct causes of maternal death, such as haemorrhage and sepsis, predominate and can be tackled effectively through providing access to skilled birth attendance and emergency obstetric care. In others, indirect causes of maternal death, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, make a significant contribution and require alternative interventions. Methods of planning and evaluating maternal health interventions that do not differentiate between direct and indirect maternal deaths may lead to unrealistic expectations of effectiveness or mask progress in tackling specific causes. Furthermore, the need for additional or alternative interventions to tackle the causes of indirect maternal death may not be recognized if all-cause maternal death is used as the sole outcome indicator. This article illustrates the importance of differentiating between direct and indirect maternal deaths by analysing historical data from England and Wales and contemporary data from Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa. The principal aim of the paper is to highlight the need to differentiate deaths in this way when evaluating maternal mortality, particularly when judging progress towards the fifth Millennium Development Goal. It is recommended that the potential effect of maternity services failing to take indirect maternal deaths into account should be modelled.",
keywords = "maternal mortality, direct maternal deaths, indirect maternal deaths, monitoring and evaluation",
author = "Suzanne Cross and Bell, {Jacqueline S} and Graham, {Wendy J}",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
doi = "10.2471/BLT.09.063537",
language = "English",
volume = "88",
pages = "147--153",
journal = "Bulletin of the World Health Organization",
issn = "0042-9686",
publisher = "World Health Organization",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What you count is what you target

T2 - the implications of maternal death classification for tracking progress towards maternal mortality in developing countries

AU - Cross, Suzanne

AU - Bell, Jacqueline S

AU - Graham, Wendy J

PY - 2010/2

Y1 - 2010/2

N2 - The first target of the fifth United Nations Millennium Development Goal is to reduce maternal mortality by 75% between 1990 and 2015. This target is critically off track. Despite difficulties inherent in measuring maternal mortality, interventions aimed at reducing it must be monitored and evaluated to determine the most effective strategies in different contexts. In some contexts, the direct causes of maternal death, such as haemorrhage and sepsis, predominate and can be tackled effectively through providing access to skilled birth attendance and emergency obstetric care. In others, indirect causes of maternal death, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, make a significant contribution and require alternative interventions. Methods of planning and evaluating maternal health interventions that do not differentiate between direct and indirect maternal deaths may lead to unrealistic expectations of effectiveness or mask progress in tackling specific causes. Furthermore, the need for additional or alternative interventions to tackle the causes of indirect maternal death may not be recognized if all-cause maternal death is used as the sole outcome indicator. This article illustrates the importance of differentiating between direct and indirect maternal deaths by analysing historical data from England and Wales and contemporary data from Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa. The principal aim of the paper is to highlight the need to differentiate deaths in this way when evaluating maternal mortality, particularly when judging progress towards the fifth Millennium Development Goal. It is recommended that the potential effect of maternity services failing to take indirect maternal deaths into account should be modelled.

AB - The first target of the fifth United Nations Millennium Development Goal is to reduce maternal mortality by 75% between 1990 and 2015. This target is critically off track. Despite difficulties inherent in measuring maternal mortality, interventions aimed at reducing it must be monitored and evaluated to determine the most effective strategies in different contexts. In some contexts, the direct causes of maternal death, such as haemorrhage and sepsis, predominate and can be tackled effectively through providing access to skilled birth attendance and emergency obstetric care. In others, indirect causes of maternal death, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, make a significant contribution and require alternative interventions. Methods of planning and evaluating maternal health interventions that do not differentiate between direct and indirect maternal deaths may lead to unrealistic expectations of effectiveness or mask progress in tackling specific causes. Furthermore, the need for additional or alternative interventions to tackle the causes of indirect maternal death may not be recognized if all-cause maternal death is used as the sole outcome indicator. This article illustrates the importance of differentiating between direct and indirect maternal deaths by analysing historical data from England and Wales and contemporary data from Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa. The principal aim of the paper is to highlight the need to differentiate deaths in this way when evaluating maternal mortality, particularly when judging progress towards the fifth Millennium Development Goal. It is recommended that the potential effect of maternity services failing to take indirect maternal deaths into account should be modelled.

KW - maternal mortality

KW - direct maternal deaths

KW - indirect maternal deaths

KW - monitoring and evaluation

U2 - 10.2471/BLT.09.063537

DO - 10.2471/BLT.09.063537

M3 - Article

VL - 88

SP - 147

EP - 153

JO - Bulletin of the World Health Organization

JF - Bulletin of the World Health Organization

SN - 0042-9686

IS - 2

ER -