RESEARCH

Home visits by community health workers to prevent neonatal deaths in developing countries: a systematic review

Des visites à domicile par des professionnels communautaires de la santé permettent de réduire la mortalité infantile dans les pays en voie de développement: une revue systématique

Visitas domiciliarias por parte de personal sanitario comunitario para prevenir la mortalidad neonatal en los paísesen desarrollo: revisión sistemática

Siddhartha Gogia; Harshpal Singh Sachdev^*

Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Research, B-16 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110016, India

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether home visits for neonatal care by community health workers can reduce infant and neonatal deaths and stillbirths in resource-limited settings.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review up to 2008 of controlled trials comparing various intervention packages, one of them being home visits for neonatal care by community health workers. We performed meta-analysis to calculate the pooled risk of outcomes.
FINDINGS: Five trials, all from southAsia, satisfied the inclusion criteria. The intervention packages included in them comprised antenatal home visits (all trials), home visits during the neonatal period (all trials), home-based treatment for illness (3 trials) and community mobilization efforts (4 trials). Meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of neonatal death (relative risk, RR: 0.62; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.440.87) and stillbirth (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65–0.89), and a significant improvement in antenatal and neonatal practice indicators (1 antenatal check-up, 2 doses of maternal tetanus toxoid, clean umbilical cord care, early breastfeeding and delayed bathing). Only one trial recorded infant deaths (RR: 0.41; 0.30–0.57). Subgroup analyses suggested a greater survival benefit when home visit coverage was > 50% (P < 0.001) and when both preventive and curative interventions (injectable antibiotics) were conducted (P= 0.088).
CONCLUSION: Home visits for antenatal and neonatal care, together with community mobilization activities, are associated with reduced neonatal mortality and stillbirths in southern Asian settings with high neonatal mortality and poor access to facility-based health care.

RÉSUMÉ

OBJECT: if Determiner si les visites a domicile pour soins neonataux par des professionnels communautaires de la sante peuvent reduire la mortalite infantile et neo-natale et la mortinatalite dans des situations ou les ressources sont limitees.
MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectue un examen systematique jusqu'a 2008 d'essais controles comparant plusieurs ensembles d'intervention, l'un d'entre eux comprenant les visites a domicile pour soins neonataux par des professionnels communautaires de la sante. Nous avons execute une meta-analyse pour calculer le risque amalgame des resultats.
RÉSULTATS: Cinq essais, tous en Asie du Sud, repondaient aux criteres d'inclusion. Les ensembles d'intervention comportaient des visites prenatales a domicile (tous les essais), des visites a domicile pendant la periode neonatale (tous les essais), des traitements pour maladies a domicile (3 essais) et des efforts de mobilisation communautaire (4 essais). La meta-analyse a montre un risque reduit de mort neonatale (risque relatif (RR): 0,62; intervalle de confiance (IC) a 95%: 0,44-0,87) et d'enfants mort-nes (RR: 0,76; IC 95%: 0,65-0,89), et une amelioration significative des indicateurs de pratique prenatale et neonatale ( 1 bilan de sante prenatal, 2 doses d'anatoxine tetanique maternelle, soins de nettoyage du cordon ombilical, allaitement precoce et bain differe). Seul un essai a rapporte des morts infantiles (RR: 0,41; 0,30-0,57). Les analyses de sous-groupes ont suggere un plus grand avantage de survie lorsque la couverture de visite a domicile etait > 50% (P < 0,001) et lorsque des interventions preventives et curatives (antibiotiques injectables) etaient realisees (P = 0,088).
CONCLUSION: Les visites a domicile pour soins prenataux et neonataux, avec activites de mobilisation communautaire, sont associees a une mortalite neonatale et une mortinatalite reduites dans les regions d'Asie du Sud ou la mortalite neo-natale est elevee et ou l'acces a des soins en milieu medical est limite.

RESUMEN

OBJETIVOS: Determinar si las visitas de atencion neonatal a domicilio por parte del personal sanitario comunitario pueden reducir la mortalidad neonatal, la mortalidad de los menores de un ano y la muerte fetal en entornos de recursos limitados.
MÉTODOS: Se llevo a cabo una revision sistematica de los estudios comparativos llevados a cabo hasta 2008, en los que se compararon diferentes intervenciones, siendo una de ellas las visitas domiciliarias de atencion neonatal por parte del personal sanitario comunitario. Para el calculo del riesgo combinado de los resultados se empleo un metanalisis.
RESULTADOS: Cinco ensayos, todos ellos llevados a cabo en Asia meridional, cumplian los criterios de inclusion. Las intervenciones incluyeron: visitas domiciliarias prenatales (todos los ensayos), visitas domiciliarias durante el periodo neonatal (todos los ensayos), tratamiento domiciliario de enfermedades (tres ensayos) y esfuerzos comunitarios de movilizacion (cuatro ensayos). El metanalisis mostro un menor riesgo de muerte neonatal (riesgo relativo, RR: 0,62; intervalo de confianza del 95%, IC: 0,44-0,87) y de muerte fetal (RR: 0,76; IC: 95%: 0,65-0,89) y una mejora significativa de los indicadores de la asistencia prenatal y neonatal ( 1 revision prenatal, 2 dosis de la vacuna antitetanica materna, cuidado aseptico del cordon umbilical, lactancia materna temprana y postergacion del primer bano). Solo un ensayo registro muertes de menores de un ano (RR: 0,41; 0,30-0,57). Los analisis de los subgrupos indicaron una mayor supervivencia cuando la cobertura de la visita domiciliaria fue > 50% (P < 0,001) y cuando se llevaron a cabo intervenciones preventivas y de tratamiento (antibioticos inyectables) (P = 0,088).
CONCLUSIÓN: Las visitas domiciliarias de atencion prenatal y neonatal, junto con las actividades comunitarias de movilizacion, estan relacionadas con la disminucion de la mortalidad neonatal y de la muerte fetal en areas de Asia meridional con elevada mortalidad neonatal y un acceso deficiente a los consultorios de asistencia sanitaria.

Introduction

The last three decades have witnessed a significant fall in mortality rates among children under 5 years of age in developing countries, whereas neonatal mortality rates have decreased at a slower pace.^1,2 Estimates published in 2001 suggest that about 38% of all under-5 mortality occurs in the neonatal period and accounts for 4 million deaths worldwide each year.³ Ninety-nine per cent of global neonatal mortality occurs in developing countries.⁴ It is widely recognized that lowering neonatal mortality is vital for achieving further reductions in infant and child mortality.^1,5-8

Among neonatal deaths, three fourths occur during the first week of life, while 25 occur within the first 24 hours after birth. The majority occur at home.^1,5,9,10 A strategy that promotes universal access to antenatal care, skilled birth attendance and early postnatal care has the potential to contribute to sustained reductions in neonatal mortality. To complement facility-based care, home-based strategies to promote optimal neonatal care practices have been proposed. Two related modalities for this purpose have been attempted in programmes and research trials in the last decade. The first involves home visits for the promotion of optimal neonatal care; the second includes home-based management of neonatal infections and other neonatal problems arising during birth, including neonatal resuscitation if required, plus the promotion of preventive interventions.

Information on the effectiveness of these complementary community-based approaches for reducing neonatal mortality is needed to frame policy for their inclusion in public health programmes. Further, the relative value of preventive or promotive and treatment interventions is unclear. We have therefore performed a systematic review for the purpose of determining whether home visits for neonatal care by community health workers can reduce infant and neonatal deaths and stillbirths in resource-limited settings with poor access to health facility-based care.

Methods

Inclusion criteria

We only looked for trials comparing groups that received different experimental interventions, including home visits for neonatal care by community health workers, with a control group that did not receive any home-based intervention by community health workers during the neonatal period. Trials having a random, quasi-random or non-random design, with individual or cluster allocation, were eligible for inclusion. However, trials evaluating interventions for the home-based follow up of infants born and initially cared for in a hospital were excluded, as were single-intervention trials.

The trial population had to be composed of neonates (i.e. infants < 28 days old or in the first month of life if age not specified in days) born in resource-limited settings with poor access to health-facility-based care.

Trials were required to include home-based experimental interventions by community health workers in the neonatal period. However, they could also include additional home-based interventions by community health workers during pregnancy or delivery.

Interventions during the neonatal period could include one or more of the following: (i) the promotion of optimal neonatal care practices, such as exclusive breastfeeding, keeping the baby warm and clean umbilical cord care; (ii) caregiver education to improve caregiver recognition of life-threatening neonatal problems and appropriate health care seeking behaviour; (iii) the identification of signs of severe neonatal illness and referral to a health facility; or (iv) home-based management of neonatal conditions.

Interventions during pregnancy could comprise one or more of the following: (i) promotion of antenatal care; (ii) health education and/or counselling of the mother regarding desirable practices during pregnancy; (iii) promotion of delivery in a hospital or at home by a skilled birth attendant; and (iv) education about safe and/or clean delivery practices.

Interventions during delivery could include the implementation by community health workers of safe delivery practices at home and proper care of the neonate immediately after birth, such as keeping the baby warm, providing neonatal resuscitation (if required) and initiating breastfeeding early.

A community health worker was defined as any paid village health worker or unpaid volunteer, or any auxiliary health professional working in the community.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was the all-cause neonatal mortality rate, defined as the number of deaths from any cause in infants up to the age of 28 completed days (or 1 month) divided by the number of live births in the study population.

Secondary outcomes included: (i) all-cause infant mortality rate, defined as the number of deaths from any cause during the first year of life divided by the number of live births in the study population; (ii) cause-specific neonatal mortality: deaths due to sepsis, tetanus, asphyxia or prematurity (as defined by authors, irrespective of single- or multiple-cause assignment); (iii) stillbirth rate; and (iv) care practices during pregnancy and delivery and in the postnatal period in trials providing data on neonatal mortality. Such practices included the following: 1 antenatal care visit; 2 doses of maternal tetanus toxoid injection; money saving for childbirth; skilled care at birth; clean umbilical cord care; breastfeeding initiation within 1 hour of birth; bathing of the neonate no less than 24 hours after birth; and skin-to-skin care after birth.

Search methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register in the Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Health Services Technology, Administration, and Research (HealthSTAR), the ISI Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinical trials web sites. Included were articles in any language published from the beginning of each database up to 5 October 2008. For all included articles, we performed a lateral search in PubMed by using the “related articles” link. We also hand searched for reviews and for conference proceedings/abstracts.

Since neonatal care practice indicators were not a primary outcome and were examined only as explanatory variables for any effect on mortality, we did not search for them independently. We did not employ any filter to limit the search to developing country (resource-limited) settings. However, we included only trials that had been conducted in countries with a low or middle level of human development.¹¹

Quality assessment

The quality of the identified trials was assessed on the basis of the methods used for sampling and for allocation into intervention and control groups.¹² Randomization was classified as: (a) adequate, (b) unclear, (c) inadequate and (d) not used; allocation concealment as: (a) adequate, (b) unclear, (c) inadequate and (d) not used.

Data abstraction

Both authors extracted data separately. The data were then compared and any differences were resolved through mutual agreement. When necessary, the original investigators were asked for additional data or clarifications. Data entry and initial analysis were performed on SPSS version 14.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, United States of America).

Analysis

We performed meta-analysis using Stata^® software version 9.2 (StataCorp LP, College Station, USA). The presence of bias in the extracted data was evaluated quasi-statistically using the funnel plot¹³ and formally with the “metabias” command.^14,15 To be able to appropriately combine individual and cluster randomized trials, we made pooled estimates (relative risk, RR, with 95% confidence intervals, CIs) and calculated the heterogeneity of the evaluated outcome measures by the generic inverse variance method using the “metan” command^14,16,17. The effect size of the intervention (summary RR) was calculated by comparing mortality rates at the end of each intervention or observation period, since baseline and/or change data were not available for all included trials. For completeness, we analysed both random effects and fixed effects model estimates; however, a random effects model was preferred if substantial heterogeneity was present (I² > 50%).

The following pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed for all-cause neonatal mortality as a hypothesis generating exercise: (i) random (individual or cluster) versus non-random or quasi-random allocation to examine the effect of trial quality on the RR of death; (ii) preventive interventions versus preventive and curative interventions (e.g. injectable antibiotics for neonatal sepsis) to examine the potential effect of adding curative treatment; (iii) high (> 45 deaths per 1000 live births) versus low (< 45 deaths per 1000 live births) baseline neonatal mortality to examine the possibility of a greater benefit in populations with higher baseline mortality; and (iv) proportion of neonates receiving a postnatal visit (< 50% versus > 50%) to assess the effect of intervention coverage.

Results

Trial flow

We identified 60 potentially eligible references, 47 of which were excluded (Fig. 1) for reasons detailed in Table 1 (available at: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/9/09-069369).The remaining 13 references, which pertained to 5 trials, were included in the review.^18–30

Trial characteristics

Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of included trials, all of which were conducted in southern Asian countries with high baseline neonatal mortality rates (> 45 deaths per 1000 live births). Sylhet¹⁸ and Shivgarh²⁰ trials were cluster-randomized and provided cluster-adjusted mortality data. The other three trials, from Hala,¹⁹ Gadchiroli²¹ and Barabanki,³⁰ were non-randomized or quasi-randomized and had a concurrent control group. End-line evaluation provided data on 17 675 and 14 251 live births, and on 746 and 779 neonatal deaths in the intervention and control arms, respectively.

Intervention Package

Table 2 describes the training received by the health-care workers who delivered each intervention package. Table 3 summarizes the intervention packages used in the trials.

Quantitative data synthesis

Five trials provided neonatal mortality data^18–21,30 and three provided data on stillbirths.^19–21 One trial provided infant mortality data and cause-specific mortality data.²¹

Neonatal mortality

All five trials provided neonatal mortality data.^18–21,30 The funnel plot appeared symmetrical, which suggests the absence of publication bias. This was confirmed using Egger's method (P = 0. 974). There was evidence of a reduced risk of death during the neonatal period in association with home-based neonatal care; the pooled relative risk was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.44–0.87; I² = 86.4%; P = 0.000) in the random effects model (Fig. 2).

On performing pre-specified subgroup analyses we found evidence of significant heterogeneity among subgroups with respect to randomization and coverage (Table 4). Subgroup analyses for baseline neonatal mortality were not feasible because all trials were classified as having high mortality. Trials with adequate randomization (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.39–0.75), showed a greater reduction in neonatal mortality than non-randomized or quasi-randomized trials (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.40–1.13; heterogeneity P = 0.006). A statistically non-significant trend towards a greater effect on mortality was observed with both curative (injectable antibiotics) and preventive interventions (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.30–0.85), as compared to only preventive intervention (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.44–1.12; heterogeneity P = 0.088). Higher (> 50%) coverage with home-based neonatal care was associated with better survival (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42–0.70) than lower (< 50%) coverage (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.81–1.38; heterogeneity P < 0.001).

On performing univariate meta-regression analyses, none of these variables emerged as a significant predictor of heterogeneity (results not shown).

Infant mortality

Data on infant mortality were available from only one trial,²¹ and it showed a significant decline (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.30–0.57).

Cause-specific mortality

Only one trial²¹ presented cause-specific Mortality data for neonates. The reported reduction in neonatal cause-specific mortality due to sepsis, asphyxia, prematurity and hypothermia was 89.8% (95% CI: 78.6–101.0), 53.3% (23.8–82.8), 38% (4.3–71.6) and 100% (one-sided 95% CI not stated), respectively.

Stillbirth rate

Data was pooled from 3 trials.^19–21 There was evidence of a reduced risk of stillbirth; the pooled RR was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.65–0.89; I² = 0%; P = 0.766) in random and fixed effects models.

Care practice indicators

Antenatal and neonatal practice indicators improved significantly ( 1 antenatal checkup, 2 maternal doses of tetanus toxoid, clean umbilical cord care, early breastfeeding and delayed bathing) (Table 5).

Discussion

This systematic review of controlled trials, of which 5 satisfied the inclusion criteria, indicates that home visits for neonatal care by community health workers are associated with reduced neonatal mortality in resource-limited settings with poorly accessible health-facility-based care when conducted along with community mobilization activities. Data from three trials showed a reduction in the stillbirth rate. Only one trial showed evidence of reduced infant mortality and neonatal cause-specific mortality (from sepsis, asphyxia, prematurity and hypothermia). While on meta-regression no variable emerged as a significant predictor of an effect on neonatal mortality; subgroup analyses suggested that the survival benefit is higher as intervention coverage increases and possibly when curative care (injectable antibiotics for neonatal sepsis) is provided in addition to preventive or promotive interventions.

Strengths and limitations

In this up-to-date systematic review that incorporated relevant subgroup and meta-regression analyses, no evidence of publication bias was found. With the sole exception of the Gadchiroli trial,^21–29 in which the intervention and control groups had only one cluster each, all cluster- and individual-randomized trials were appropriately combined by correcting for a design effect on mortality outcomes. Both random and fixed effects models were used for pooling the data, and the results were invariably synchronous.

The review also had several limitations. First, data on stillbirths were limited to three trials, while only one trial had investigated infant mortality and cause-specific mortality. Second, all trials were conducted in parts of southern Asia with high baseline neonatal mortality rates (> 45 deaths per 1000 live births),³¹ which impedes generalization to other regions, particularly to sub-Saharan Africa or to areas with lower neonatal mortality. Finally, the subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed discordance, perhaps because some subgroup results could have been falsely positive or because the number of trials may have been too small. Any significant predictor identified should therefore only be considered as exploratory.

We excluded trials that exclusively evaluated the effect of home-based follow-up of infants born in and recruited from hospitals because they were not central to framing policy on home-based neonatal care in settings with poor access to health facilities. Nevertheless, the conclusion regarding reduced mortality remained stable even after we included two such trials^32,33 from developing countries (Zambia³² and the Syrian Arab Republic³³). Upon assuming that all deaths in these two trials occurred in the neonatal period, the pooled RR of neonatal death in 7 trials was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.46–0.90; I² = 81.8%; P < 0.001) in a random effects model.

We depicted both random-effects and fixed-effects model estimates for completeness; however, we preferred a random-effects model because substantial heterogeneity (I² 50%) was observed for neonatal mortality. Nevertheless, inferences regarding neonatal mortality and stillbirths remained stable irrespective of the model chosen, and this finding in

better quality trials is reassuring. However, it may also indicate that effects in programme rather than research settings may be smaller. Subgroup analyses also suggested a greater neonatal survival benefit with higher (> 50%) intervention coverage levels, as expected. In the only trial (Barabanki³⁰) with low postnatal intervention coverage (39%), intention to treat analysis did not reveal any reduction in neonatal mortality (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.38). However, neonates who received a postnatal home visit within 28 days of birth had 34% lower neonatal mortality (design effect, unadjusted: 35.7 deaths per 1000 live births; 95% CI: 29.2–42.1) than those who received no postnatal visit (53.8 deaths per 1000 live births; 95% CI: 48.9–58.8).³⁰ From a programmatic perspective it would have been useful to get some insight into the optimal number and timing of neonatal visits, but unfortunately this was not possible from the available data.

In the 5 trials under review, the intervention was delivered as a package comprising three components: home visits during pregnancy (all trials), home visits for neonatal care (all trials) and community mobilization efforts (4 trials). Thus, we were unable to differentiate the independent effects of the three intervention components on neonatal mortality. Other trials from similar settings, some of which are listed in Table 1, suggest that community mobilization alone, without home-based neonatal care, improves neonatal health outcomes, including survival.^34–40 However, in the only direct comparison of the two approaches,¹⁸ neonatal mortality was reduced in the home-based care arm (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47–0.93) but not in the community-mobilization arm (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.69–1.31). It was also impossible to differentiate the independent effects of antenatal and postnatal home visits. However, programmatically this is not crucial because in practice antenatal visits are required to establish contact with pregnant women before postnatal visits and health workers can also provide community mobilization services.

The effects on mortality observed in these trials is supported by significant improvements in antenatal and neonatal care practices whose association with reduced mortality has been demonstrated in previous reviews.7

Implications for policy

Home visits for neonatal care by community health workers, when accompanied by community mobilization efforts, are associated with reduced neonatal deaths and stillbirths in settings with high neonatal mortality rates (> 45 deaths per 1000 live births) and poor access to health-facility-based care. This provides evidence in support of adopting a policy of home-based neonatal care provided by community health workers in such settings. High intervention coverage (> 50%) is essential for achieving meaningful reductions in neonatal mortality. No concrete recommendations can be formulated from the available evidence regarding the optimal timing of home visits and specific responsibilities of community health workers. It would be prudent to remember that all the evidence pertains to southern Asia; however, there are no obvious reasons to suspect different results in other regions with similar neonatal mortality rates and access to health care.

Implications for future research

The following gaps in the evidence base need to be urgently addressed to guide policy: (i) the effectiveness of the intervention package in high-mortality settings in other regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa; (ii) the effectiveness of the intervention package in settings with lower neonatal mortality rates (15–29 and 30–45 deaths per 1000 live births³¹); (iii) the benefit of adding a curative component (especially the treatment of neonatal sepsis) to preventive or promotive neonatal care; (iv) the relative efficacy of home visits of a certain number and timing (e.g. 1 versus 2–3 in the first week of life); and (v) ways to achieve high coverage and an intervention of high quality in programme settings.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Clive Osmond, MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, Southampton, theUnited Kingdom, for helping with the statistical analysis in relation to the calculation of cluster-adjusted relative risks.

Funding: External: Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, World Health Organization, Geneva. Internal: Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science and Research, New Delhi, India. The funding sources had no involvement in the study or the decision to publish the manuscript. There was no agreement with the funders that could have limited our ability to complete the research as planned, and we had full control of all primary data.

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Darmstadt GL, Lawn J, Costello A. Advancing the state of the world'snewborns. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:224–5. PMID:12764520        

2. Hyder A, Morrow R, Wali S, McGuckin J. Burden of disease for neonatal mortality in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Washington: Save the Children Federation–USA; 2001.         

3. World Health Organization. Estimates. In: State of the world's newborns. Washington: Saving Newborn Lives, Save the Children/USA; 2001: PN1–49.         

4. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J. 4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why? Lancet 2005;365:891–900. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5 PMID:15752534        

5. Darmstadt GL, Black R, Santosham M. Research priorities and postpartum-care strategies for the prevention and treatment of neonatal infections in less developed countries. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000;19:739–50. PMID:10959744        

6. Child Health Research Project. Reducing perinatal and neonatal mortality. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; 1999.         

7. Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA, Cousens S, Adam T, Walker N, de Bernis L. Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save? Lancet 2005;365:977–88. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71088-6 PMID:15767001        

8. Moss W, Darmstadt G, Marsh D, Black R, Santosham M. Research priorities for the reduction of perinatal and neonatal morbidity and mortality in developing country communities. J Perinatol 2002;22:484–95. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7210743 PMID:12168128        

9. Saving Newborn Lives. State of the world's newborns. Washington: Save the Children/USA; 2001. Available from. http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/newborns_report.pdf [accessed 23 April 2010]         

10. Bhutta ZA, de'Silva H, Manandhar D, Awasthi S, Moazzem Hossain SM, Awasthi S et al. Maternal and child health: is South Asia ready for change? BMJ 2004;328:816–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7443.816 PMID:15070640        

11. Human development report 2009 – overcoming barriers: human mobility and development. New York: United Nations Development Programme; 2009. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/ [accessed 14 November 2009]          .

12. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Assessment of study quality. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006], Section 6. In: The Cochrane Library, issue 4. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2006.         

13. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp. 189-208.         

14. Sterne JAC, Bradburn MJ, Egger M. Meta-analysis in STATA TM. In: Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors.London: BMJ Books; 2001. pp. 347-69.         

15. Steichen TJ, Egger M, Sterne JAC. Tests for publication bias in meta-analysis. Stata Technical Bulletin 1998;44:3–4.         

16. Harris R, Bradburn MJ, Deeks J, Harbord R, Altman D, Steichen T, et al. Stata Version 9 Update (Distribution Date February 19, 2007) for the Stata User Written Programme sbe24 (Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Altman D. sbe24: metan- an alternative meta-analysis command. Stata Technical Bulletin 1999; 44: 4-15). Available from: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/bocode/m [accessed 24 March 2007]          .

17. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58. doi:10.1002/sim.1186 PMID:12111919         

18. Baqui AH, El-Arifeen S, Darmstadt GL, Ahmed S, Williams EK, Seraji HR et al. Effect of community-based newborn-care intervention package implemented through two service-delivery strategies in Sylhet district,Bangladesh: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;371:1936–44. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60835-1 PMID:18539225        

19. Bhutta ZA, Memon ZA, Sooi S, Salat MS, Cousens S, Martines J. Implementing community-based perinatal care: results from a pilot study in ruralPakistan. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:452–9. doi:10.2471/BLT.07.045849 PMID:18568274        

20. Kumar V, Mohanty S, Kumar A, Misra RP, Santosham M, Awasthi S et al. Effect of community-based behaviour change management on neonatal mortality in Shivgarh,Uttar Pradesh, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:1151–62. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61483-X PMID:18926277        

21. Bang AT, Bang RA, Baitule SB, Reddy MH, Deshmukh MD. Effect of home-based neonatal care and management of sepsis on neonatal mortality: field trial in ruralIndia. Lancet 1999;354:1955–61. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)03046-9 PMID:10622298        

22. Bang AT, Reddy HM, Deshmukh MD, Baitule SB, Bang RA. Neonatal and infant mortality in the ten years (1993 to 2003) of the Gadchiroli field trial: effect of home-based neonatal care. J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S92–107. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211277 PMID:15791283        

23. Bang AT, Bang RA, Baitule SB, Reddy HM, Deshmukh MD. Management of birth asphyxia in home deliveries in rural Gadchiroli: the effect of two types of birth attendants and of resuscitating with mouth-to-mouth, tube-mask or bag-mask. J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S82–91. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211275 PMID:15791282         

24. Bang AT, Baitule SB, Reddy HM, Deshmukh MD, Bang RA. Low birth weight and preterm neonates: can they be managed at home by mother and a trained village health worker? J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S72–81. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211276 PMID:15791281        

25. Bang AT, Bang RA, Stoll BJ, Baitule SB, Reddy HM, Deshmukh MD. Is home-based diagnosis and treatment of neonatal sepsis feasible and effective? Seven years of intervention in the Gadchiroli field trial (1996 to 2003). J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S62–71. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211273 PMID:15791280        

26. Bang AT, Bang RA, Reddy HM, Deshmukh MD, Baitule SB. Reduced incidence of neonatal morbidities: effect of home-based neonatal care in rural Gadchiroli, India. J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S51–61. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211274 PMID:15791279        

27. Bang AT, Bang RA. Background of the field trial of home-based neonatal care inGadchiroli, India. J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S3–10. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211267 PMID:15791276        

28. Bang AT, Bang RA, Reddy HM, Deshmukh MD. Methods and the baseline situation in the field trial of home-based neonatal care in Gadchiroli, India. J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S11–7. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211268 PMID:15791273        

29. Bang AT, Bang RA, Reddy HM. Home-based neonatal care: summary and applications of the field trial in ruralGadchiroli, India (1993 to 2003). J Perinatol 2005;25(Suppl 1):S108–22. doi:10.1038/sj.jp.7211278 PMID:15791272        

30. Baqui AH, Williams EK, Rosecrans AM, Agrawal PK, Ahmed S,Darmstadt GL et al. Impact of an integrated nutrition and health programme on neonatal mortality in rural northernIndia. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:796–804. doi:10.2471/BLT.07.042226 PMID:18949217        

31. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J; Lancet Neonatal Survival Steering Team. 4 million neonatal deaths: when? Where? Why? Lancet 2005;365:891–900. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71048-5 PMID:15752534        

32. Ransjo-Arvidson AB, Chintu K, Ng'andu N, Eriksson B, Susu B, Christensson K et al. Maternal and infant health problems after normal childbirth: a randomized controlled study inZambia. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:385–91. doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.385 PMID:9764260        

33. Bashour HN, Kharouf MH, Abdul Salam AA, el Asmar K, Tabbaa MA, Cheikha SA. Effect of postnatal home visits on maternal/infant outcomes in Syria: A randomized controlled trial. Public Health Nurs 2008;25:115–25. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2008.00688.x PMID:18294180        

34. Osrin D, Mesko N, Shrestha BP, Shrestha D, Tamang S, Thapa S et al. Implementing a community-based participatory intervention to improve essential newborn care in ruralNepal. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2003;97:18–21. doi:10.1016/S0035-9203(03)90008-3 PMID:12886798        

35. Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumbahangphe KM et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women's groups on birth outcomes inNepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:970–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17021-9 PMID:15364188        

36. Morrison J, Tamang S, Mesko N, Osrin D, Shrestha B, Manandhar M et al. Women's health groups to improve perinatal care in ruralNepal. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2005;5:6. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-5-6 PMID:15771772        

37. O'Rourke K, Howard-Grabman L, Seoane G. Impact of community organization of women on perinatal outcomes in ruralBolivia. Rev Panam Salud Publica 1998;3:9–14. doi:10.1590/S1020-49891998000100002 PMID:9503957        

38. Pence BW, Nyarko P, Phillips JF, Debpuur C. The effect of community nurses and health volunteers on child mortality: the Navrongo Community Health and Family Planning Project. Scand J Public Health 2007;35:599–608. doi:10.1080/14034940701349225 PMID:17852975        

39. Perry HB, Shanklin DS, Schroeder DG. Impact of a community-based comprehensive primary healthcare programme on infant and child mortality in Bolivia. J Health Popul Nutr 2003;21:383–95. PMID:15038594        

40. Phillips JF, Bawah AA, Binka FN. Accelerating reproductive and child health programme impact with community-based services: the Navrongo experiment in Ghana. Bull World Health Organ 2006;84:949–55. doi:10.2471/BLT.06.030064 PMID:17242830        

(Submitted: 2 July 2009 – Revised version received: 16 January 2010 – Accepted: 17 January 2010 – Published online: 10 May 2010)

* Correspondence to Harshpal Singh Sachdev (e-mail: hpssachdev@gmail.com).