Unattended pregnancies and perinatal mortality in Georgia

5Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: The majority of pregnant women in Georgia attend the free-of-charge, national antenatal care (ANC) programme, but over 5% of pregnancies in the country are unattended. Moreover, Georgia has one of the highest perinatal mortality (PM) rates in Europe (11.7/1000 births). Purpose: To assess the association between unattended pregnancies and the risk of PM. Methods: Data were extracted from the Georgian Birth Registry (GBR) and the national vital registration system. All mothers who had singleton births and delivered in medical facilities in Georgia in 2017–2018 were included in the study and categorised into attended pregnancies (at least one ANC visit during pregnancy) and unattended pregnancies (no ANC visits during pregnancy). After exclusions, the study sample included 101,663 women and their newborns, of which 1186 were either stillborn or died within 7 days. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of unattended pregnancies on PM. Results: During the study period, the PM rate was 12.9/1000 births. In total, 5.6% of women had unattended pregnancies. The odds of PM among women with unattended pregnancies were more than double those among women with attended pregnancies (odds ratio=2.21, [95% confidence interval: 1.81–2.70]). Multiparous women with higher education and who resided/delivered outside of Tbilisi were significantly less likely to experience PM. Conclusion: The risk of PM doubled among women with unattended pregnancies. Six percent of PM cases were attributable to unattended pregnancies. Targeting women with previous unattended pregnancies will likely reduce the PM rate in Georgia.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Manjavidze, T., Rylander, C., Skjeldestad, F. E., Kazakhashvili, N., & Anda, E. E. (2020). Unattended pregnancies and perinatal mortality in Georgia. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 13, 313–321. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S243207

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free