MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386983266 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxad055.035

35 Estimating the Impact of Pregnancy and Childbirth Interventions Coverage on Neonatal Survival during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Nepal

2023· article· en· W4386983266 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dinesh Dharel, Deepak Paudel, Nazzem Muhajarine

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
KeywordsChildbirthPsychological interventionMedicinePandemicPregnancyConfidence intervalDemographyGovernment (linguistics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ObstetricsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on neonatal survival, especially in a resource-constrained and yet previously well-performing nation and in terms of reductions in maternal and neonatal mortality rates, is of global health interest. Objectives We estimated additional newborn lives saved by pregnancy and childbirth interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal. Design/Methods We used an open-access linear deterministic model, Lives Saved Tool (LiST), to estimate additional newborn lives saved in a year, based on the change in coverage of specified pregnancy and childbirth interventions from the previous year. We kept the rest of the interventions and the effectiveness values unchanged from the ‘default’ in the LiST model. We ran LiST projections based on coverage changes of three or more antenatal care visits and institutional delivery using: (i) ‘actual’ coverage rates reported by health facilities and published in the government’s annual reports; and (ii) ‘target’ coverage rates from the Nepal Every Newborn Action Plan. In those two scenarios, we compared the estimates of additional lives saved in the last three years. Results The number of additional newborn lives saved (with a 95% confidence interval) in a year based on ‘actual’ versus ‘target’ intervention coverage rates varied considerably during the three years of the COVID-19 pandemic: 124 (95% CI: 85,177) vs 115 (78,163) in the year 2020; 83 (57, 118) vs 226 (155,323) in 2021, and 228 (156,323) vs 333 (228,471) in 2022. The top four interventions during childbirth would contribute to 70% (304 of 435) of additional lives saved, based on ‘actual’ coverage rates, compared to 87% (588 of 674) based on the ‘target’ coverages. Neonatal resuscitation saved the most newborn lives (91 vs 178), followed by thermal protection (77 vs 148), clean cord care (72 vs 138), and assisted vaginal delivery (64 vs 124). Prematurity, birth asphyxia, and sepsis are the top three causes of lives lost, contributing to around 72% of neonatal mortality, with estimated neonatal mortality rates of 19.46, 19.53, and 19.28 per 1000 live births in the years 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively. Conclusion A one-third reduction in estimated additional newborn lives saved in the year 2021 compared to 2020, and a significant difference noted that same year on estimates based on ‘actual’ versus ‘target’ coverage rates of antenatal care and institutional delivery in Nepal, may reflect an indirect impact of reduced coverage of pregnancy and childbirth interventions on neonatal mortality during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207