Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Special Collections
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Tips for Writing About Programs in GHSP
      • Local Voices Webinar
      • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Special Collections
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Tips for Writing About Programs in GHSP
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Alerts
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • RSS
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Open Access

Authors' Response to Editorial: Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: A Tall Order for Effectiveness in Resource-Poor Settings

Helen Smith, Charles Ameh, Pamela Godia, Judith Maua, Kigen Bartilol, Patrick Amoth, Matthews Mathai and Nynke van den Broek
Global Health: Science and Practice December 2017, 5(4):697-698; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00407
Helen Smith
aCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Helen.Smith@lstmed.ac.uk
Charles Ameh
aCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pamela Godia
bLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine Kenya Office, Nairobi, Kenya.
cKenya National Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response Secretariat, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Judith Maua
bLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine Kenya Office, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kigen Bartilol
dReproductive Maternal Health Services Unit, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Amoth
eDivision of Family Health, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthews Mathai
aCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nynke van den Broek
aCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

See related articles by Koblinsky and by Smith et al.

We thank Marge Koblinksy for her considered editorial1 on the Maternal Death Surveillance and Response (MDSR) approach used in Kenya and lessons learned, described in our recent article published in GHSP.2 Her views on the potential effectiveness of MDSR in resource-limited settings, however, seem pessimistic.

Firstly, Koblinsky argues that MDSR is too complicated and demanding in low- and middle-income countries, and should be abandoned in favour of investment in lifesaving interventions. We argue, however, that investment must be made in ensuring availability of care as well as quality of this care for interventions to be lifesaving. Most maternal deaths in low- and middle-income countries result from obstetric complications. The care packages to prevent and manage these complications are established and evidence-based. Most maternal deaths occur because complications are not recognized on time, women do not receive these interventions on time, or care given may be substandard.

Secondly, Koblinsky criticizes the assessment of factors contributing to maternal deaths in the national report from Kenya—incorrect management, insufficient monitoring, and delay in taking action when needed—as being too general. Yet these are exactly the reasons why women die. For example, the failure to identify severe hemorrhage early and to take timely and adequate action is what leads to death in women with hemorrhage in many cases. It is only by understanding these factors through a systematic review process such as maternal death audit that health care providers can identify what actions need to be undertaken to improve the quality of care and outcomes. Similarly, by aggregating information across settings, regional and national governments can identify cross-cutting themes and formulate priority recommendations, such as the need to strengthen blood transfusion services. In places where MDSR is currently implemented including the Republic of South Africa, Malaysia, and several states in India, there is emerging evidence that this results in measurable improvements in availability and quality of care with renewed priority setting and investment in maternal and newborn health.3,4

The editorial also levels criticism more generally at the country-level efforts in Kenya and remarks that the results presented fall short of what is needed. In the first year of MDSR implementation at the national level using the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths (CEMD) approach, the decision was to start with the identification and review of maternal deaths in major comprehensive emergency obstetric care facilities. A total of 52% of all maternal deaths reported to have occurred in these facilities were included in the report. In a country with 62% of births occurring in a health care facility, the review process discovered that maternal deaths occurring at the health facility level were underreported and that the District Health Information System 2 (DHIS 2) database did not capture deaths occurring at the community level. In response, the government is reorganizing the maternal death surveillance system to ensure that all maternal deaths are reported through DHIS 2.5 Furthermore, criticism of the lack of action following the recommendations made in the report is premature—the report has only just been completed, and the Ministry of Health (MOH) will formally launch it by the end of 2017. We can confirm that for the first time in Kenya, specific recommendations for action by various stakeholders (e.g., the MOH, county governments, professional associations, and civil society) with indicators and targets to guide the ‘Response’ have been produced. This is a significant step forward

Koblinsky summarizes the history of maternal death audit and its evolution into CEMD in high-income countries. However, her point that MDSR is likely to be more successful in countries with low maternal mortality ratios (MMRs) is not based on sound evidence. In the United Kingdom, the use of maternal death reviews started small as a practitioner-led activity in Rochdale, in northwest England, between 1931 and 1934. Prior to this, the MMR in Rochdale was estimated to be 900 per 100,000 live births, twice the national average. In 1934, at a time of severe economic depression, because of actions taken following the Rochdale Enquiry, the MMR decreased to 280, “without any alteration in personnel or any substantial increase in public expenditure.”6 The first full national enquiry into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom was not conducted until 30 years later in 1952 and has successfully continued to date as an important quality improvement process.

The impetus and commitment that drove the process in Kenya was from the highest administrative level, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, and supported by the professional medical and midwifery associations and regulatory bodies. The running of the committee was not a “gray area.” There was no precedent, so it was initially challenging to get the committee up and running. Despite these challenges, the committee is well-established and has terms of reference agreed by all stakeholders and approved by the MOH. The committee is actively led and managed by the national MDSR secretariat situated within the MOH.

In our article, we document implementation of MDSR in a ‘real-life’ setting, reporting on experiences and lessons learned working in partnership with the MOH in Kenya to implement their previously agreed guidelines on Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) based on the World Health Organization MDSR guidelines.7 We do not advocate that MDSR is the only solution to reducing maternal mortality, nor do we suggest it is easy to implement. We do, however, provide a careful analysis of what needs to be in place for successful implementation and what could facilitate the maturation of the process in a country like Kenya. We certainly acknowledge that there is still more to do. Aware that otherlow- and middle-income countries are currently embarking on establishing MDSR, we wish to share the important lessons learned in Kenya.

Notes

Competing Interests: None declared.

Cite this article as: Smith H, Ameh C, Godia P, Maua J, Bartilol K, Amoth P, et al. Authors' response to editorial: Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: a tall order for effectiveness in resource-poor settings. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(4):697-698. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00407

  • Received: 2017 Nov 7.
  • Accepted: 2017 Nov 21.
  • Published: 2017 Dec 28.
  • © Smith et al.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00407

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Koblinsky M
    . Maternal death surveillance and response: a tall order for effectiveness in resource-poor settings. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(3):333–337. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00308. pmid:28963168
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Smith H,
    2. Ameh CA,
    3. Godia P,
    4. et al
    . Implementing maternal death surveillance and response in Kenya: incremental progress and lessons learned. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2017;5(3):345–354. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00130. pmid:28963171
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ravichandran J,
    2. Ravindran J
    . Lessons from the confidential enquiry into maternal deaths, Malaysia. BJOG. 2014;121(suppl 4):47–52. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12944. pmid:25236633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Paily VP,
    2. Ambujam K,
    3. Rajasekharan Nair V,
    4. Thomas B
    . Confidential review of maternal deaths in Kerala: a country case study. BJOG. 2014;121(suppl 4):61–66. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13000. pmid:25236635
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS); ICF Macro. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Calverton, MD: KNBS and ICF Macro; 2014. https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR308-DHS-Final-Reports.cfm. Accessed December 7, 2017.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Topping A
    . Maternal mortality in Rochdale. Br Med J. 1935;1:386. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3868.386
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: Technical Guidance. Information for Action to Prevent Maternal Death. Geneva: WHO; 2013. http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/maternal_death_surveillance/en/. Accessed October 1, 2017.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 5 (4)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 5, No. 4
December 28, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Authors' Response to Editorial: Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: A Tall Order for Effectiveness in Resource-Poor Settings
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Authors' Response to Editorial: Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: A Tall Order for Effectiveness in Resource-Poor Settings
Helen Smith, Charles Ameh, Pamela Godia, Judith Maua, Kigen Bartilol, Patrick Amoth, Matthews Mathai, Nynke van den Broek
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2017, 5 (4) 697-698; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00407

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Authors' Response to Editorial: Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: A Tall Order for Effectiveness in Resource-Poor Settings
Helen Smith, Charles Ameh, Pamela Godia, Judith Maua, Kigen Bartilol, Patrick Amoth, Matthews Mathai, Nynke van den Broek
Global Health: Science and Practice Dec 2017, 5 (4) 697-698; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00407
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Maternal Death Surveillance and Response: A Tall Order for Effectiveness in Resource-Poor Settings
  • Implementing Maternal Death Surveillance and Response in Kenya: Incremental Progress and Lessons Learned
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Authors’ Response to Letter on “Down but Not Out: Vasectomy Is Faring Poorly Almost Everywhere—We Can Do Better to Make It a True Method Option”
  • Regarding “Down but Not Out: Vasectomy Is Faring Poorly Almost Everywhere—We Can Do Better to Make It a True Method Option”
  • Regarding “Willingness to Pay for HIV Prevention Commodities Among Key Population Groups in Nigeria”
Show more LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Health Topics
    • Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health
Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs

Follow Us On

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire