Types, reporting and acceptability of community-based interventions for stillbirth prevention in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): a systematic review.
Gwacham-Anisiobi U., Boo YY., Oladimeji A., Kurinczuk JJ., Roberts N., Opondo C., Nair M.
BACKGROUND: Community-based interventions are increasingly being implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) for stillbirth prevention, but the nature of these interventions, their reporting and acceptability are poorly assessed. In addition to understanding their effectiveness, complete reporting of the methods, results and intervention acceptability is essential as it could potentially reduce research waste from replication of inadequately implemented and unacceptable interventions. We conducted a systematic review to investigate these aspects of community-based interventions for preventing stillbirths in SSA. METHODS: In this systematic review, eight databases (MEDLINE(OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation index (Web of Science Core Collection), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Global Index Medicus) and four grey literature sources were searched from January 1, 2000 to July 7, 2023 for relevant quantitative and qualitative studies from SSA (PROSPERO-CRD42021296623). Following deduplication, abstract screening and full-text review, studies were included if the interventions were community-based with or without a health facility component. The main outcomes were types of community-based interventions, completeness of intervention reporting using the TIDier (Template for Intervention Description and replication) checklist, and themes related to intervention acceptability identified using a theoretical framework. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's tools. FINDINGS: Thirty-nine reports from thirty-four studies conducted in 18 SSA countries were eligible for inclusion. Four types of interventions were identified: nutritional, infection prevention, access to skilled childbirth attendants and health knowledge/behaviour of women. These interventions were implemented using nine strategies: mHealth (defined as the use of mobile and wireless technologies to support the achievement of health objectives), women's groups, community midwifery, home visits, mass media sensitisation, traditional birth attendant and community volunteer training, community mobilisation and transport vouchers. The completeness of reporting using the TIDier checklist varied across studies with a very low proportion of the included studies reporting the intervention intensity, dosing, tailoring and modification. The quality of the included studies were graded as poor (n = 6), fair (n = 14) and good (n = 18). Though interventions were acceptable, only 4 (out of 7) studies explored women's perceptions, mostly focusing on perceived intervention effects and how they felt, omitting key constructs like ethicality, opportunity cost and burden of participation. INTERPRETATION: Different community-based interventions have been tried and evaluated for stillbirth prevention in SSA. The reproducibility and implementation scale-up of these interventions may be limited by incomplete intervention descriptions in the published literature. To strengthen impact, it is crucial to holistically explore the acceptability of these interventions among women and their families. FUNDING: Clarendon/Balliol/NDPH DPhil scholarship for UGA. MN is funded by a Medical Research Council Transition Support Award (MR/W029294/1).