Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

How to Identify Neonates at Risk of Death in Rural India: Clinical Criteria for the Risk Approach

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Majority of neonates in developing countries are born at home and most neonatal deaths occur without receiving medical care. This retrospective analysis was undertaken to develop simple clinical criteria for use in rural community to identify neonates at risk of death.

STUDY DESIGN:

By analyzing the observational data on two cohorts of neonates in 39 villages in different years of the Gadchiroli field trial, we selected a minimum set of clinical features. We evaluated this set for its sensitivity, specificity and predictive value to detect eventual neonatal death, the primary study outcome.

RESULTS:

The cohorts included 763 neonates with 40 deaths in 1995 to 1996, a year with minimum interventions, and 1598 neonates with 38 deaths in 1996 to 1998, the years of intensive interventions. On the day of birth, presence of any one of the three: (1) birth weight <2000 g, (2) preterm birth or (3) baby not taking feeds; or, during the rest of neonatal life, mother's report of reduced or stopped sucking by baby, were identified as the predictors of neonatal deaths. The combined set gave a sensitivity of 95%, specificity, 77.3%; predictive value, 18.8%; and the yield, 26.5% in 1995 to 1996 and, respectively, 86.8, 78, 8.8, and 23.5% in 1996 to 1998. The mean lead time gained was 3.4 to 6.6 days.

CONCLUSION:

Presence of any one of the four predictors will identify with high sensitivity and moderate specificity nearly a quarter of the neonates in rural community as high risk, 3.4 to 6.6 days in advance, for intensive attention at home or referral.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Save the Children. State of the World's Newborn. Washington, DC: Save the Children; 2001.

  2. National Family Health Survery II (1998–1999). International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai, India, 2000.

  3. Bang AT, Bang RA, Mornkar VP, Sontakke PG, Solanki JM . Pneumonia in neonates: can it be managed in the community? Arch Dis Child 1993;68:550–556.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhandari N, Bahl R, Bhatnagar V, et al. Treating sick young infants in urban slum setting. Lancet 1996;347:1774–1775.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bang AT, Bang RA, Baitule S, Deshmukh M, Reddy MH . Burden of morbidities and the unmet need for health care in rural neonates — a prospective observational study in Gadchiroli, India. Indian Pediatr 2001;38:952–965.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morrison AS . Screening. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, editors. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincot-Raven Publishers; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gove S, for the WHO Working Group on Guidelines for Integrated Management of Sick Children. Integrated management of childhood illness by outpatient health workers: technical basis and overview. Bull World Health Organ 1997;75 (Suppl 1):7–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bang AT, Bang RA, Baitule S, Reddy MH, Deshmukh M . Effect of home-based neonatal care and management of sepsis on neonatal mortality: field trial in rural India. Lancet 1999;354:1955–1961.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bang AT, Bang RA, Reddy HM, et al. Methods and the baseline situation in the field trial of home-based neonatal care in Gadchiroli, India. J Perinatol 2005;25:S11–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bang AT, Reddy HM, Baitule SB, Deshmukh MD, Bang RA . The incidence of morbidities in a cohort of neonates in rural Gadchiroli, India: seasonal and temporal variation and the scope for prevention. J Perinatol 2005;25:S18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bang AT, Paul VK, Reddy HM . Why do neonates die in rural Gadchiroli, India? Part I. J Perinatol 2005;25:S29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. WHO Collaborative Study of Birth Weight Surrogates. Use of a simple anthropometric measurement to predict birth weight. Bull World Health Organ 1994;71 (2):157–163.

  13. Raymond EG, Tafari N, Troendle JF, Clemens JD . Development of a practical screening tool to identify preterm, low birth weight neonate in Ethiopia. Lancet 1994;344:520–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Daga SR, Daga AS, Patole S, Kadam S, Mukadam Y . Foot length measurement from foot print for identifying a newborn at risk. J Trop Pediatr 1988;34:16–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. World Health Organization. Post-Partum Care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhay T Bang MD, MPH.

Additional information

The financial support for this work came from The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Ford Foundation and Saving Newborn Lives Initiative, Save the Children, USA, and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reddy, M., Bang, A. How to Identify Neonates at Risk of Death in Rural India: Clinical Criteria for the Risk Approach. J Perinatol 25 (Suppl 1), S44–S50 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211272

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211272

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links