A Randomized Comparison of Household Survey Modules for Measuring Stillbirths and Neonatal Deaths in Five Health and Demographic Surveillance Sites.

Joseph W. Akuze, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Hannah Blencowe, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Peter Waiswa, Makerere University School of Public Health
Angela Baschieri, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Ethiopia
Vladimir Goordeev, Oueen Mary University of London
Doris Kwesiga, Makerere University School of Public Health
Simon Cousens, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Joy Lawn, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Every Newborn INDEPTH Study Collaborative Group, EN-INDEPTH collaborative group

Aims This study aimed to undertake a randomized comparison of FBH with additional questions on pregnancy losses (FBH+) versus a FPH module and to examine the variation in capture of stillbirths and neonatal deaths (SB&ND). Methods In a cross-sectional multi-site study we compared FBH+ and FPH for retrospective recording of SB&ND. Women were randomised to be interviewed using either FBH+ or FPH. Pooled meta-analysis was used to combine estimates Results A total of 69,176 women consented. 34,371(49·7%) were randomized to FPH and 34,805(50·3%) to the FBH+. There was little difference between the mean time to administer questions. The SBR was 15.2/1000 and 17.4/1000 total births for FBH+ and FPH respectively. SBR was 21%(95% CI (-10% - 62%)) higher in FPH than in FBH+. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity across the sites (I-squared=80·9% (p<0.001)). The NMR was similar in FPH with no evidence of heterogeneity between the sites (I-squared=0.0% (p=0.48)).