Stillbirths and quality of care during labour at the low resource referral hospital of Zanzibar: a case-control study

Table 3 Admission and partograph use

	Case-control study BW ≥2000 g
	Cases Pre-hosp. stillbirths	Cases Intra-hosp. Stillbirths	Controls Apgar 7–10
	N (%)
Progress on admission and referrals
Of all women in the study:	(n = 67)	(n = 72)	(n = 249)
Before labour pain^a	5 (7.5 %)	2 (2.8 %)	12 (4.8 %)
Latent phase of labour^a,^b	18 (26.9 %)	40 (55.6 %)	56 (22.5 %)
First stage of labour	23 (34.3 %)	29 (40.3 %)	153 (61.4 %)
Second stage of labour	15 (22.4 %)	0 (0.0 %)	25 (10.0 %)
Stage of labour on admission unknown	6 (9.0 %)	1 (1.4 %)	3 (1.2 %)
Referral from smaller health centre^c	10 (14.9 %)	11 (15.3 %)	12 (4.8 %)
Partograph use
Of women in first stage of labour:	(n = 39)	(n = 69)	(n = 207)
The partograph at least partially applied^d	27 (69.2 %)	66 (95.7 %)	183 (88.0 %)
Of women with the partograph applied:	(n = 27)	(n = 66)	(n = 183)
First cervical dilatation in active labour plotted correctly on the alert line	18 (66.7 %)	53 (80.3 %)	166 (90.7 %)

BW birthweight, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio
^aDifference in women admitted before active labour between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 3.79, 95 % CI 2.19–6.57
^bCervical dilatation <4 cm
^cDifference between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 3.52, 95 % CI 1.67–7.39
^dDifference between pre-hospital stillbirths and both intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 9.78, 95 % CI 2.56–37.42, and OR 3.39, 95 % CI 1.52–7.56, respectively