From: Reducing stillbirths: behavioural and nutritional interventions before and during pregnancy
Source | Location and Type of Study | Intervention/Study Objective | Stillbirths/Perinatal Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|
Observational Studies | |||
Mavalankar et al. 1991 [29] | India (Ahmedabad). Urban hospital. Case-control study of stillbirth cases (N = 451), early neonatal death (N = 160), and healthy controls (N = 1465). | Used interviews to assess exposure to cooking smoke during pregnancy and assess odds of stillbirth and early neonatal death based on exposure status. | SB: adjusted OR = 1.5 (95% CI: 1.0–2.1) [NS] |
Mishra et al. 2005 [30] | India, population-based data. Analysed data from the Second National Family Health Survey (1998–99), N = 19189 ever-married women at end of reproductive career. | Used multivariate analysis to assess association of cooking smoke exposure with stillbirth risk, controlling for other factors. Categorised women by response to fuel types used for cooking/heating: High exposure (wood, dung and crops); Medium exposure (mix of biomass, cleaner fuels, coal, etc.); and Low exposure (liquid propane, electricity, kerosene, natural gas). | SB: adjusted OR = 1.44 (95% CI; 1.04–1.97), biomass vs. cleaner fuels. Recurrent SB: adjusted relative risk (RR) = 2.01 (95% CI: 1.11–3.62), biomass vs. cleaner fuels. |
Siddiqui et al. 2005 [31] | Pakistan (Sindh province). Rural, semi-rural, semi-urban setting. Prospective cohort study of pregnant women (N = 1404) enrolled through a maternal child health surveillance program. | Compared risk of stillbirth among women cooking with biomass (mainly wood) in open fire vs. piped natural gas. | SB: crude OR = 2.28 (95% CI: 1.34–3.90), wood vs. natural gas users. SB: adjusted OR = 1.90 (95% CI: 1.10–3.20), wood vs. natural gas users |