Skip to main content

Table 3 Admission and partograph use

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

 

Case-control study

BW ≥2000 g

Cases

Pre-hosp. stillbirths

Cases

Intra-hosp. Stillbirths

Controls

Apgar 710

N (%)

Progress on admission and referrals

Of all women in the study:

(n = 67)

(n = 72)

(n = 249)

  Before labour paina

5 (7.5 %)

2 (2.8 %)

12 (4.8 %)

  Latent phase of laboura,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 centrec

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 appliedd

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 %)

  1. BW birthweight, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio
  2. aDifference in women admitted before active labour between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 3.79, 95 % CI 2.19–6.57
  3. bCervical dilatation <4 cm
  4. cDifference between intra-hospital stillbirths and controls: OR 3.52, 95 % CI 1.67–7.39
  5. 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