It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic is having significant direct and associated effects on many health outcomes, including maternal mortality. As a useful marker of healthcare system functionality, trends in maternal mortality provide a lens to gauge impact and inform mitigation strategies. To report the findings of a rapid systematic review of studies on levels of maternal mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We systematically searched for studies on the 1st March 2021 in MEDLINE and Embase, with additional studies identified through MedRxiv and searches of key websites. We included studies that reported levels of mortality in pregnant and postpartum women in time-periods pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The maternal mortality ratio was calculated for each study as well as the excess mortality. The search yielded 3411 references, of which five studies were included in the review alongside two studies identified from grey literature searches. Five studies used data from national health information systems or death registries (Mexico, Peru, Uganda, South Africa, and Kenya), and two studies from India were record reviews from health facilities. There were increased levels of maternal mortality documented in all studies; however, there was only statistical evidence for a difference in maternal mortality in the COVID-19 era for four of these. Excess maternal mortality ranged from 8.5% in Kenya to 61.5% in Uganda. Measuring maternal mortality in pandemics presents many challenges, but also essential opportunities to understand and ameliorate adverse impact both for women and their newborns. Our systematic review shows a dearth of studies giving reliable information on levels of maternal mortality, and we call for increased and more systematic reporting of this largely preventable outcome. The findings help to highlight four measurement-related issues which are priorities for continuing research and development.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK; Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
2 Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK
3 UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa
5 UCL Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK
6 Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK