Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Parent-Carer Education: Reducing the Risks for Neonatal and Infant Mortality

Written By

Thillagavathie Pillay

Submitted: April 16th, 2018 Reviewed: November 29th, 2018 Published: January 21st, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.82786

Chapter metrics overview

1,194 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


In this chapter, the role of engaging parents, family members, partners, significant others and carers (subsequently referred to as parent-carers) as key partners in targeted strategies for reducing the risks associated with neonatal mortality is discussed, especially within the context of less resource-constrained environments. Parent-carer education, sharing information on regionally prevalent risk factors and associations with death in the first 28 days of life and in infancy, can be potentially impactful and could drive behavioural changes, while promoting acquisition of newer life-saving skills such as basic life support training. Such education can be considered participatory learning and action. It affords parent-carers the confidence and knowledge on measures to key risks in infancy, such as the risk of sudden infant death, and how to recognize when their baby may be ill, facilitating timely access to appropriate healthcare services. Potentially, these then empower parent-carers to work with health services proactively in measures to reduce the risks for neonatal mortality.


  • parent-carer education
  • reducing risks
  • neonatal mortality

1. Introduction

Neonatal mortality refers to deaths in the first 28 days after birth and contributes to the total burden of mortality in children. Globally, 5.4 million children under 5 years of age died in 2017, of which 2.5 million were neonates [1]. In this millennium alone, there have been overall improvements in survival in children under 5, but the greatest reduction in mortality is seen in those between 1 and 4 years of age. Between 2000 and 2017, there was a 60% worldwide reduction in mortality in this age group. In contrast, neonatal mortality reduced by 41% [1, 2]. Two key factors have influenced this improvement in outcomes: access to healthcare services and maternal education.

A faster rate of decline in childhood mortality rates compared to neonatal death rate results in the latter assuming a higher proportion of the overall burden of deaths in children. This is especially obvious in more developed economies such as in England, where, with relatively lower child and infant death profiles, the proportion of neonatal deaths to those in infancy and childhood is much higher (70%) [3]. As a result, here, the spotlight has now readjusted towards addressing neonatal mortality [4, 5, 6]. In this chapter, the potential for further reductions in neonatal mortality is explored, especially in less resource-constrained environments, by focusing on parent-carer education around risks for neonatal mortality, while using learning points from around the world. Potentially, these initiatives empower parent-carers to acquire the necessary skills to manage their baby at risk and also engage in risk-reducing behaviours for the benefit of their baby.


2. Reducing neonatal mortality through parent-carer education

Before embarking on parent education, understanding the risk factors for neonatal mortality is important. In poorly resourced areas, key risk factors and associations are infection, hypothermia, lack of breastfeeding, failure to recognise signs of illness in their baby and failure to provide adequate basic resuscitation at birth. Education packages focused on improving neonatal mortality therefore include information on maintaining warmth; drying; wrapping; skin-to-skin contact; supporting breastfeeding; infection prevention including handwashing, cord care, recognising signs of illness in their newborn baby and infant and basic life support [7].

For neonatal teams in relatively higher resourced environments, where access to public health facilities and general maternal education are less of an issue, and most of the above are routinely adopted, what are other key risk factors and what other kinds of initiatives are needed in order to make a difference to current neonatal mortality rates, and can they work?

In attempting to address this, the key risk factors here for neonatal mortality need to be identified. The most significant of these is prematurity [8, 9, 10]. In a report on perinatal mortality from MBRRACE on 2016 deaths, approximately 70% of all extended perinatal deaths occurred preterm, and almost 40% were in less than 28 weeks’ gestation [9]. Optimising place of birth for the most vulnerable preterm births less than 26 weeks gestation at birth does reduce their mortality rates [11] and optimising nurse staffing for the care of especially preterm babies in neonatal intensive care units appears to be crucial [12]. Evidence-based or consensus medical and nursing care, robust reviews of mortalities and complex morbidities and sound clinical governance are instinctively important. But, simply improving clinical care provided, and in the correct place, is probably not enough.

By virtue of these babies being born prematurely, much of the potential factors that could influence outcome predate the birth of baby. These include obstetric, maternal health and social factors [13] and are usually out of the bounds of care of neonatal teams. For example, in the risk factors for neonatal mortality in a region in the West Midlands in England, prematurity, being born with low birth weight, congenital abnormalities, born at the extremes of maternal age, late maternal presentation for antenatal care, smoking, not breastfeeding and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) were the key associations with infant mortality [8]. All of these are influenced by upstream issues, that is, before birth (except SIDS). Just focusing on care pathways and postnatal care for these babies on neonatal units and in the community will have little impact on their mortality rate. A more multidisciplinary, lateral approach is needed, and there are lessons too, from developments in parent education in resource-limited environments.

Apart from optimising clinical care, what else can neonatal teams do? An area of focus for neonatal units could potentially be enhanced primary preventive care [4]. There is evidence that early parental interventions in preterm births are effective in promoting child health [14], and there is possible value in targeting parent-carer empowerment in reducing the risks of mortality for their newly born baby in infancy and beyond. Data on this as a package of care, however, are very limited. Maternal education improves infant, child and maternal mortality globally [15, 16, 17]. These relate to mothers’ general awareness through education, which empowers women to make better decisions on the care of their baby and themselves. Engaging them in understanding the regional mortality risks for their baby, and their future babies, and what they could do to minimise these where possible may be of value. This kind of awareness of risk factors for infant mortality could provide parents and carers with knowledge that could drive longer term behavioural change that could influence the outcome of current baby, subsequent pregnancies and, in a cascade effect, those of close family members.

A recent project on parent education around the risks of mortality in a region in the West Midlands [8] in England revealed that parental uptake for the education on understanding risks for mortality was well accepted and supported (Table 1). Educating parents and carers on the basics of life support, how to manage their choking child and how to recognise that their baby is ill may empower parents and carers, enabling them to initiate preventative intervention earlier, which may be life-saving. Evidence that this can affect short-term behavioural change and empowerment through confidence building in parents appears to be possible [8], but more studies are needed in this regard.

Very informative and should be offered to all parents
I think this should be available to all parents. Found it really useful even after having three babies
All parents should be offered this!
It is a great programme and all parents will benefit from it. I know I have!
Really useful—should be available to all parents
Really appreciate eagerness of staff to come and help us
Include grandparents/relatives; make it compulsory for first-time parents. Make nursing staff more aware for STORK referrals
I can truly say this service has made me feel 100% confident in taking my baby home! Could not be more grateful. Thank you!
Very useful and helpful instructor. Wish all mums had this opportunity.
Really helpful. Get to know things you did not before and understand it better
It is good to help save babies’ life. Every parent should do
Very informative, thank you
This made me feel at ease about taking my baby Harry home knowing about the ways to safe sleep. Brilliant today. Thank you very much!
Very good. Helped put my mind at ease should the need arise. Felt very comfortable
Trainer very informative and helpful. Additional advice given on other topics; reassurance given
Covered a lot I wasn’t even aware of
Was very useful and has made me aware now as I did not have a clue about any
Absolutely I think all parents should go through this not just ones on neonates unit

Table 1.

Selected parent feedback comments for parent/carer training on a neonatal unit in the West Midlands, England. Extracted from [8].


3. The benefits of overall maternal education on infant mortality

The most significant factor globally in reducing mortality for young children under 5 years of age is maternal education, and universal primary education for mothers is an established key focus of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal [17]. Better maternal education decreases not only childhood mortality but also maternal mortality [18] and is evident across resource-constrained and resource-richer environments. This is most striking in the former, where lower levels of maternal education (i.e., less than secondary school education) are significantly associated with neonatal mortality. In resource-richer environments, this effect is less noticeable [19] but prevalent in pockets with lower socio-economic status and lower levels of maternal education [19, 20]. While not easy to tease out, it is assumed that the impact of general maternal education on infant and childhood outcomes relates to empowerment of women to make better decisions over the care of their baby and care of themselves. Therefore, any targeted education, through providing parents and carers with knowledge of risks and associations with neonatal mortality, may contribute to empowering them into making decisions in the best interest of their baby, in an attempt to reduce risks for mortality.


4. Methods of delivering targeted parent-carer education

A synopsis of this can be found in Table 2.

4.1 One-to-one point-of-care education

This refers to education around a reason for a healthcare visit, usually in the home, or a visiting point. This has its benefits, providing an opportunity for maternal and family engagement with health services and focused learning and behavioural change. It is best reported in resource-constrained environments, as evidenced by the impact of health visits and education on behavioural changes and infant mortality, in women who have recently given birth [21]. Keeping baby warm, dry and wrapped to prevent hypothermia, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding and infection prevention, including delivering in a clean environment, handwashing, cord care and knowing what the signs of illness are in their baby, are key aspects of shared knowledge [21]. Guidelines for postnatal care of the mother and newborn, especially in resource-limited environments, were produced by the World Health Organisation ([22], Table 3), and these include parent education via home visits in the first week after birth and at least three additional postnatal contact points in the first 6 weeks of life.

Home visits by community health care workers [69]Home visit by community-based worker after birth in India: information shared included breastfeeding, basic care of the baby—temperature control, hygiene, care of the umbilical cord stump, danger signs in the baby and how to use the healthcare system, especially for the sick, or preterm, or low-birth weight baby. There was a significant reduction in neonatal mortality rate in those who received the education [35.7 deaths per 1000 live births compared to those who did not (53.8 per 1000 live births)]
Regular community group sessions by Lady Health Workers [70]Group sessions by lady health workers in Pakistan included sharing information on immediate newborn care, cord care (cleaning and avoiding the use of traditional materials, such as ash and lead powder), and promotion of exclusive breastfeeding. There was also additional sharing of information on early breastfeeding (within the first hour) use of colostrum, thermoregulation, home care of low-birth weight infants, treatment of neonatal pneumonia, recognising the sick baby and danger signs needing treatment. Here the neonatal mortality rate significantly decreased from 57.3 to 41.3 per 1000 live births.
Community-based package of care in [71]In India, this package included birth preparedness, clean delivery and cord care, thermal care (including skin-to-skin care), breastfeeding promotion, and danger sign recognition, and in one group a hypothermia indicator.
Compared with controls, neonatal mortality rate was significantly reduced by 54%.
Participatory learning and action via women’s groups [25]This was a meta-analysis of seven trials in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Malawi, estimating the effect of women’s group interventions on behavioural outcomes. Women’s groups practising PLA showed improved behaviours during and after home deliveries, including the use of safe birthing kits, sterile blade to cut the cord, birth attendant washing hands before delivery, delayed bathing of baby for at least 24 hours and wrapping baby within 10 minutes of birth. Here, neonatal mortality was 32% lower in the clusters that had the intervention.
In resource-richer environments
Organised support groupsPeer support groups may work on one-to-one or group basis, face-to-face, via telephone, social media or social engagement and include online and physical resources for training and guidance to parents on antenatal, birth and child issues.
E.g.: Child birth peer support groups, supporting antenatal, birth and parenting in the UK (NCT);
E.g.: BLISS charity for sick and preterm babies;
Support groups: local, regional, national and international [72]E.g.: Breastfeeding support may be delivered on one-to-one or group format, at the bedside while in hospital and in the home. Breastfeeding support workers, nurses and breastfeeding buddies may be local and regional and hospital or community based. There also exists international organisational support through La Leche League International;
Support for specialised conditions/ congenital anomaliesThese are usually groups based on national or international need and include for example the national Down syndrome group in the UK, and its international counterpart—Down syndrome international, which co-ordinates working with and advocating the case for children with Down syndrome in over 136 countries around the world.

Table 2.

Examples of parent-carer engagement: examples from around the world.

1: Timing of discharge from a health facility after birthAfter an uncomplicated vaginal birth in a health facility, healthy mothers and babies should receive care in the facility for at least 24 hours after birth.
2: Number and timing of postnatal contactsIf birth is at home, the first postnatal contact should be as early as possible within 24 hours of birth. At least three additional postnatal contacts are recommended for all mothers and babies, on day 3, between days 7 and 14 after birth, and 6 weeks after birth.
3: Home visits for postnatal careIf birth is in a health facility, mothers and babies should receive postnatal care in the facility for at least 24 hours after birth.
Home visits in the first week after birth are recommended for care of the mother and her baby.
4: Assessment of the babyThe following signs should be assessed during each postnatal care contact and the baby should be referred for further evaluation if any of the signs is present:
stopped feeding well, history of convulsions, fast breathing (breathing rate ≥ 60 per minute), severe chest in-drawing, no spontaneous movement, fever (temperature ≥ 37.5°C), low body temperature (temperature < 35.5°C), any jaundice in first 24 hours of life, or yellow palms and soles at any age. The family should be encouraged to seek health care early if they identify any of the above danger signs in between postnatal care visits.
5: Exclusive breastfeedingAll babies should be exclusively breastfed from birth until 6 months of age. Mothers should be counselled and provided support for exclusive breastfeeding at each postnatal contact.
6: Cord careDaily chlorhexidine application to the umbilical cord stump during the first week of life is recommended for babies who are born at home in settings with high neonatal mortality (30 or more neonatal deaths per 1000 live births).
Clean, dry cord care is recommended for babies born in health facilities and at home in low neonatal mortality settings. Use of chlorhexidine in these situations may be considered only to replace application of a harmful traditional substance to the cord stump.
7: Other postnatal careBathing should be delayed until 24 hours after birth. If this is not possible, bathing should be delayed for at least 6 hours. Appropriate clothing of the baby for ambient temperature is recommended. This means one to two layers of clothes more than adults, and use of hats/caps. The mother and baby should not be separated and should stay in the same room 24 hours a day.
Communication and play with the baby should be encouraged.
Immunisation should be promoted as per existing WHO guidelines.
Preterm and low-birth weight babies should be identified immediately after birth and should be provided special care as per existing WHO guidelines.

Table 3.

WHO recommendation on postnatal care for newborn babies, 2013 [22].

In resource-richer environments, for example, England, similar 1:1 point-of-care visits at home usually occur post-delivery, initially by midwives and later by healthcare workers. NICE Guidelines on 1:1 postnatal care [23] guide the basic requirements for routine postnatal care for women and their babies and their partners and families. Support for feeding, advice on safe sleeping, recognising and dealing with health problems for both mother and baby are included in the quality standard, but there are limitations to its success to date [24]. These are usually delivered by midwives or health visitors, as the primary healthcare contacts for a mother and family with a newly born baby.

Educational engagement with parents and carers on the neonatal unit occurs as per unit policy and can include a wide variety of information supported by online resources and paper reading material. Guidance on basic life support is offered by some, but specific packages of information targeting knowledge around key risk factors on neonatal mortality are usually not presented in such a format to parents and carers. These may, however, be a useful point-of-care opportunity for education and training [8].

4.2 Centre-based peer group education

Participatory learning and action programmes promoted by the World Health Organization drive behavioural change through parent and community engagement [25]. Support groups work through community engagement, in which mothers develop and implement their own strategies for improvement, through shared peer group learning with a facilitator. The women are empowered to make improvements for their own communities, which result in behavioural changes that were more effective than simple traditional teacher/student model. In a trial in India, neonatal mortality reduced by 45%, with behavioural changes towards better hygiene practices and better newborn care, such as cord care, delivering in a clean environment and early breastfeeding [26].

In higher resourced environments, participatory learning and action can apply as well, with parents being offered information on risks for neonatal and infant mortality, knowledge on basic life support and choking, reducing the risks for sudden infant death and promoting safe sleeping and recognising signs of illness in their infant [8].

4.3 Local, regional and national support groups

In resource-richer environments, peer groups supporting the new mother may be driven by health care or by the community. Mother and baby peer groups or new parent groups are a useful way of engaging parents and family members [27] and can be local, regional or national such as BLISS, which is a national charity for sick and premature babies [28] in England. These may be one-to-one engagements or group interaction depending on resources and availability and include online resources for learning and communicating. Examples of these are shown in Table 2.

The benefits of these kinds of educational thrust on reducing mortality may be less obvious where health care is equitable to all [19], but still of value as such environments do have pockets of poorer educational levels [20], linked with greater mortality. It may be appropriate to extrapolate that the benefits of maternal peer and group education in contributing to behavioural changes that reduce the risk of mortality can possibly also apply to resource-richer environments. In the USA, an Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality identified the value of a multimedia approach in the preventive campaign needed to reduce infant mortality [29]. They suggest a life course perspective on infant mortality reduction, urging an approach that includes health promotion and optimisation throughout the course of life, in a clinical and population-based manner. Such a perspective should include focused parent-carer education and empowerment through education on risks for infant mortality. This could mean that parents have a better idea of how best and when to seek help for their baby who may be getting ill, that is, early initiation of preventative care. Although widely prevalent in higher resourced economies, very little has been studied in this regard, and this is being mapped better in more resource-constrained settings [30].


5. What should a parent-carer education package aimed at reducing the risks for infant mortality comprise?

Key parameters are driven by local epidemiological needs. It is likely that even in areas that do adopt a primary prevention package the contents will change depending on societal needs. In resource-limited environments with poor access to health care, basic hygiene around delivery, cord care, keeping baby dry, wrapped and warm, immunizations, basic life support and breastfeeding may be key [21, 22]. In less resource-constrained environments, where most of the above are standard practice, other areas may be relevant. In the sections below, some of these are described.

5.1 Breastfeeding education and infant mortality

The benefits of breastfeeding on reducing infant mortality and morbidity are widely accepted. In 2003, the Lancet published data [31] that of all children who died under the age of 5 years, 12% of these deaths could have been prevented if they were effectively breastfed as infants. This amounted to roughly 800,000 lives in low- and middle-income countries per year. In their systematic review, Sankar et al. [32] showed that the relative risk for all-cause mortality in infants under 6 months of age and not breastfed was 14.4, 4.8 in those partially breastfed and 1.5 in those completely breastfed. For children 6–23 months of age, they demonstrated up to a two-fold higher mortality (RR 1.97 [1.45–2.67]) if not breastfed, when compared to those who were. Exclusive breastfeeds are also associated with lower mortality and infection rates [33], and this impact can be seen as early as with breastfeeds given within the first hour of life [34, 35, 36]. Maternal awareness, education and support for breastfeeding to improve breastfeeding rates are therefore a critical part of the parent empowerment, in reducing infant mortality.

These benefits exist in all resource settings. For example, in Washington, Alaska, Maine, Nebraska and Ohio, promotion of the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative saw benefits of this for mothers of lower education which were significant, increasing the breastfeeding rates for >4 weeks of life here (p = 0.02) [37]. These provide evidence for the continued thrust for promoting breastfeeding as a potential protective factor against the risk of neonatal and infant mortality, even in resource-richer environments. The Baby Friendly Initiative, developed by UNICEF, promotes breastfeeding as part of its thrust to support families with feeding, enabling the development of close relationships for the best start in life for babies.

5.2 Smoking cessation and infant mortality

The negative effects of prenatal, natal and postnatal smoking on morbidity and mortality in infants are widely described [38, 39] and include premature births, low-birth weight babies which are themselves at risk for mortality and an increased risk for sudden infant death. Smoking cessation in pregnancy or prenatally, or even postnatally, is complex. Risk factors for smoking include having a smoking partner, with a lower risk where there is higher maternal education level [40]. Mass campaigns can potentially influence smoking cessation rates in pregnancy [41]. In three states in the USA, those smokers exposed to a CDC smoking cessation campaign in pregnancy had a reduction in smoking by the third trimester compared to those who were not exposed to the campaign (34.7 vs. 32.9%; p < 0.001). In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 studies encompassing 55,584 women who smoked before their pregnancy, Riaz et al. [42] noted that higher educational level, higher socio-economic status, low exposure to second-hand smoke and planned breastfeeding were associated with cessation of smoking during pregnancy. So, there is potential value, extrapolating from these that an awareness programme could influence smoking cessation rates in association with pregnancy/after birth, targeting not only mothers, but their partners, significant others and family members.

Education versus incentive-based systems to reduce smoking may work to different degrees. These modern alternatives to conventional educational and awareness campaigns could include mobile apps, ipad programmes and text messages [43, 44]. But simply offering education may not be adequate, and there is much more to be done to understand this. Barriers to smoking cessation are multi-fold and may exceed support pathways. In an NIHR HTA assessment of these [45], partners’ support, willingness to change smoking behaviour and the smoking dynamics within relationships mattered, and delivery of information is a key barrier than can potentially be overcome with the appropriate educational drives. At the same time, it is important to note that up to 50% of women who stop smoking during their pregnancy resume within 6 months after birth [46]. There may be a hard core of individual mothers/parents who are unable to stop smoking, even knowing the risks to their baby. Some evidence exists that specific behavioural techniques may have an impact on prenatal smoking cessation [47, 48, 49], but the complexities around cessation in relation to pregnancy and childbirth need further interventional analysis. Despite these limitations, there may still be the benefit of incorporating smoking cessation information into parent awareness packages [8], while awaiting more effective interventions and primary preventive packages.

5.3 Safe sleep

Safe sleep programmes can make a difference to the risks of sudden infant death syndrome. In parts of the USA, interventions such as these halved the rate of infant deaths from 1.08/1000 to 0.48/1000. Research suggests that education of caregivers does result in improved understanding of behaviours that promote safe sleep and reduce the risk of SIDS [50]. Simple measures such as position of sleeping have changed SIDS rates dramatically [51]. And parent and carer education is a key directive for future reductions in this area [52]. Evidence that discharge from hospital programmes do make a difference is also emerging [53] in a pilot trial of promoting safe sleep patterns in mothers of preterm babies, who have a doubled risk of SIDS; and there is also acknowledgement that this group especially should be targeted for educational interventions to reduce the risk of SIDS. Simple educational campaigns en masse may not have the desired effect [54, 55] and additional measures may be needed such as 1:1 educational drives. These can comfortably be delivered in 1:1 or peer group packages supported by neonatal units, midwives and health care visitors as part of the point-of-care programme of education for parents and carers.

5.4 Basic life support training

Basic life support at birth is critical, and a standard practice in higher income settings where healthcare support exists at the time of birth. However, even for home births and births outside of healthcare facilities, this skill is essential. In their review on neonatal resuscitation in low-income settings, Wall et al. [56] noted that the major burden of resuscitation at birth (approximately 10 million babies do not breathe at birth, of which 6 million require basic life support) is in low-income settings. Here, they suggest that local education of community health workers can make a difference to the rate of deaths at the time of birth (termed intrapartum deaths).

In higher income settings, where there are healthcare workers trained in basic life support, there still exists a need for parent-carer education and awareness. Acute life-threatening events in infancy are the next area of concern and can affect babies as young as 0–3 months of age [57]. Bystander CPR with and without dispatcher instructions improved 1-month neurological outcomes favourably (adjusted OR 1.81 and 1.68) when compared to no bystander CPR in children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests [58], and survival after shockable arrests was higher when delivered by a first responder or public AED rather than a paramedic (83.3 vs. 40% p = 0.04) [59]. In reporting on the Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine in the USA, Callahan and colleagues advocate that paediatricians should encourage training of basic life support to parents, children, caregivers, school personnel and lay members of the public [60]. Many neonatal units do offer basic life support training for parents and carers when their baby is due to leave their unit; these boost parent confidence in being able to cope with their infant after discharge from hospital.

5.5 Kangaroo care and infant mortality

Skin-to-skin contact via Kangaroo care [61] is also an important part of a care package especially for preterm births. When compared to conventional care, Kangaroo mother care was associated with 36% lower mortality (RR 0.64), a lower risk of neonatal sepsis (RR 0.53), hypothermia (RR 0.22), hypoglycaemia (RR 0.12), hospital readmission (RR 0.42) and increased rate of exclusive breastfeeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.26, 1.78) [62]. Educating and empowering mothers, on the value of such care packages, is important in reducing morbidities especially in low-birth weight infants.

5.6 Reducing the risks for congenital abnormalities

Congenital abnormalities are a major cause of infant mortality in higher resource environments, with variation between ethnic groups and a strong association with consanguinity [63, 64]. Reducing the risks for life-threatening congenital abnormalities [65] (either through the condition itself, or through its association with preterm birth) is dependent on parental awareness regarding the risks of congenital abnormality pre-conceptually, availability and uptake of screening for major congenital abnormalities, the potential for intervention, and parent perspectives on termination of pregnancy, should they carry a baby with a lethal/potentially lethal condition in utero. Where possible, parent education to raise awareness regarding the likelihood of a congenital abnormality should be discussed in the context of consanguinity and the elderly mother.

5.7 Reducing the risk of preterm birth

Risk factors for preterm birth include, among a wide array of clinical scenarios, poor maternal health, maternal infections, smoking and alcohol use in pregnancy, multiple births and extremes of maternal age [66]. The World Health Organisation [67] has set out basic advice to reduce preterm births and these include promoting a healthy pregnancy by supporting: (a) a healthy diet, (b) optimal nutrition, (c) advice on tobacco use in pregnancy, (d) advice on alcohol use in pregnancy, (e) antenatal support and scanning to detect gestational age and multiple births, (f) better access to contraceptives, (g) management of risk factors such as infections and (h) increased maternal empowerment.

In higher resource settings, strategies for prevention of preterm births include: (a) prevention of non-medically indicated late preterm/early term births, (b) progesterone supplementation, (c) cervical cerclage, (d) tobacco control and prevention of smoking in pregnancy, (e) judicious use of fertility treatments and (f) dedicated preterm birth prevention clinics [68].

All of these aspects relate to upstream events prior to birth of the baby, but still hold benefit in parent-carer education, for the ripple effect that it may have on communities, and also for guiding care around the subsequent pregnancy.


6. Conclusion

Parent education programmes, targeted around understanding and, thereby, empowering parents with knowledge around the risks of neonatal and infant mortality, are an intuitively important adjunct to neonatal clinical care. Its role in preventive neonatal care may be strong, for its potential benefits on behavioural changes that enable reduced risks for the current and subsequent pregnancies. Getting parents actively engaged in programmes that work with them for the betterment of their baby, their subsequent babies and their communities may be the key to change for the future. This embraces patient and public (i.e., parents/family members/significant others and carers) involvement in taking ownership of, and making a greater contribution to their overall health, and to that of their families.

What is now needed are focused thrusts around parent education and empowerment, based on local risk factors and associations with neonatal mortality, combined with robust scientific research to assess the impact, if any, of such programmes.



To the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, its Neonatal Unit, parents and babies who participated, Wolverhampton Public Health and to its commissioning group for supporting this programme.


Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. United Nations Inter-agency group for Child Mortality Estimation. Levels and Trends in Child Mortality. Report 2018. Available from: [Accessed 15-10-2018]
  2. 2. United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality. Estimation (UN IGME), Levels & Trends in Child Mortality: Report 2017. Estimates Developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation’, United Nations Children’s Fund, New York. 2017
  3. 3. Public Health England. Facts and Figures on Infant Mortality and Stillbirths. National Child and Maternal Health Intelligence Network, 2014. Available from: [Date Accessed: 22-08-2018]
  4. 4. Pillay T. Parent, family and carer empowerment and neonatal mortality: Stretching the boundaries for neonatal units. Journal of Neonatal Nursing. 2018;4:289-290. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnn.2018.07.006
  5. 5. Public Health England. Mortality. Infant Mortality and Stillbirths Profile. Available from: [Date Accessed: 22-08-2018]
  6. 6. MBRRACE-UK: Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK. [Accessed: 15-10-2018]
  7. 7. Enweronu-Laryea C, Dickson KE, Moxon SG, et al. Basic newborn care and neonatal resuscitation: A multi-country analysis of health system bottlenecks and potential solutions. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2015;15(Supp. 2):S4
  8. 8. Pillay T, Porter K, Marson S. Developing an early life parent education programme in response to high infant mortality rates. Journal of Neonatal Nursing. 2017;23(5):242-243
  9. 9. MBRRACE Perinatal Mortality Surveillance Report. UK Perinatal Deaths for Births from January to December 2016. Summary Report. Available from: [Date Accessed: 23-08-2018]
  10. 10. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes. In: Behrman RE, Butler AS, editors. Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007. 10, Mortality and Acute Complications in Preterm Infants. Available from:
  11. 11. Marlow N, Bennett C, Draper ES, Hennessy EM, Morgan AS, Costeloe KL. Perinatal outcomes for extremely preterm babies in relation to place of birth in England: The EPICure 2 study. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2014;99(3):F181-F188. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305555
  12. 12. Watson SI, Arulampalam W, Petrou S, et al. The effects of a one-to-one nurse-to-patient ratio on the mortality rate in neonatal intensive care: A retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 2016;101(3):F195-F200. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309435
  13. 13. Kim D, Saada A. The social determinants of infant mortality and birth outcomes in Western developed nations: A cross-country systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013;10(6):2296-2335. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10062296
  14. 14. Puthussery S, Chutiyami M, Tseng PC, Kilby L, Kapadia J. Effectiveness of early intervention programs for parents of preterm infants: A meta-review of systematic reviews. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20152238. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-2238
  15. 15. Sosnaud B. Inequality in infant mortality: Cross-state variation and medical system institutions. Social Problems. 2017. 10.1093/socpro/spx034 [Date Accessed: 23-08-2018]
  16. 16. Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. Journal of Health Economics. 2010;29(1):1-28. Published online 2009 October. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003
  17. 17. Veneman AN. Education is key to reducing child mortality: The link between maternal health and education. UN Chronicle. 2007;XLIV(4)
  18. 18. Karlsen S, Say L, Souza JP, et al. The relationship between maternal education and mortality among women giving birth in health care institutions: Analysis of the cross sectional WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:606
  19. 19. Carlsen F, Grytten J, Eskild A. Maternal education and risk of offspring death; changing patterns from 16 weeks of gestation until one year after birth. European Journal of Public Health. 2014;24(1):157-162
  20. 20. Goldfarb SS, Houser K, Wells BA, Brown Speights JS, Beitsch L, Rust G. Pockets of progress amidst persistent racial disparities in low birthweight rates. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0201658
  21. 21. Gogia S, Singh Sachdev H. Home visits by community health workers to prevent neonatal deaths in developing countries: A systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2010;88:658-666B
  22. 22. World Health Organisation. Recommendations on Post Natal Care of the Mother and Newborn. 2013. Available from: [Accessed: 15-10-2018]
  23. 23. National Institute for Clinical Excellence Quality Standard 37. Post Natal Care. Available from: [Accessed: 15-10-2018]
  24. 24. The Royal College of Midwives. Post Natal Care Planning. Pressure Points. The Case for Better Post Natal Care. Available from: [Accessed: 15-10-2018]
  25. 25. Seward N, Neuman M, Colbourn T, et al. Effects of women’s groups practising participatory learning and action on preventive and care-seeking behaviours to reduce neonatal mortality: A meta-analysis of cluster-randomised trials. PLOS Medicine. 2017;14(12):e1002467
  26. 26. Tripathy P, Nair N, Barnett S, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes and maternal depression in Jharkhand and Orissa, India: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1182-1192
  27. 27. Guest EM, Keatinge DR. The value of new parent groups in child and family health nursing. The Journal of Perinatal Education. 2009;18(3):12-22. DOI: 10.1624/105812409X461180
  28. 28. BLISS: For Babies Born Sick or Premature. [Accessed: 15-10-2018]
  29. 29. Lu MC, Johnson KA. Toward a national strategy on infant mortality. American Journal of Public Health. 2014;104(Supp. 1):S13-S16
  30. 30. The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. Mapping the Evidence on Social, Behavioural and Community Engagement for Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health. Available from: [Accessed: 22-08-2018]
  31. 31. Jones G, Steketee RW, Black RE, Bhutta ZA, Morris SS. Bellagio child survival study G. How many child deaths can we prevent this year? Lancet. 2003;362:65-71
  32. 32. Sankar MJ, Sinha B, Chowdhury R, Bhandari N, Taneja S, Martines J, et al. Optimal breastfeeding practices and infant and child mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Paediatrica. 2015;104(467):3-13
  33. 33. Khan J, Vesel L, Bahl R, Martines JC. Timing of breastfeeding initiation and exclusivity of breastfeeding during the first month of life: Effects on neonatal mortality and morbidity--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2015;19(3):468-479
  34. 34. Boccolini CS, Carvalho ML, Oliveira MI, Pérez-Escamilla R. Breastfeeding during the first hour of life and neonatal mortality. Jornal de Pediatria. 2013;89(2):131-136
  35. 35. Phukan D, Ranjan M, Dwivedi LK. Impact of timing of breastfeeding initiation on neonatal mortality in India. International Breastfeeding Journal. 2018;13:27
  36. 36. Smith ER, Chowdhury R, Sinha B, Fawzi W, Edmond KM, Neovita Study Group. Delayed breastfeeding initiation and infant survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180722
  37. 37. Hawkins SS, Stern AD, Baum CF, Gillman MW. Evaluating the impact of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative on breast-feeding rates: A multi-state analysis. Public Health Nutrition. 2015;18(2):189-197
  38. 38. NHS. Stopping Smoking is the Best Thing You Can do for Your Baby. Available from: [Date Accessed: 23-08-2018]
  39. 39. Smoking: Stopping in Pregnancy and after Childbirth. NICE Public Health Guideline 26. Published June 2010. Available from: [Date Accessed: 23-08-2018]
  40. 40. Lamy S, Houivet E, Marret S, Hennart B, et al. Risk factors associated to tobacco and alcohol use in a large French cohort of pregnant women. Archives of Women’s Mental Health. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00737-018-0892-4. [Epub ahead of print]
  41. 41. England L, Tong VT, Rockhill K, et al. Evaluation of a federally funded mass media campaign and smoking cessation in pregnant women: A population-based study in three states. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e016826
  42. 42. Riaz M, Lewis S, Naughton F, Ussher M. Predictors of smoking cessation during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2018;113(4):610-622
  43. 43. Rathbone AL, Prescott J. The use of mobile apps and SMS messaging as physical and mental health interventions: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2017;19(8):e295
  44. 44. Dotson JAW, Pineda R, Cylkowski H, Amiri S. Development and evaluation of an iPad application to promote knowledge of tobacco use and cessation by pregnant women. Nursing for Women’s Health. 2017;21(3):174-185
  45. 45. Bauld L, Graham H, Sinclair L, et al. Barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and following childbirth: Literature review and qualitative study. Health Technology Assessment. 2017;21(36):1-158
  46. 46. Underner M, Pourrat O, Perriot J, Peiffer G, Jaafari N. Smoking cessation and pregnancy. Gynecologie, Obstetrique, Fertilite & Senologie. 2017 Oct;45(10):552-557
  47. 47. Wilson SM, Newins AR, Medenblik AM, et al. Contingency Management Versus Psychotherapy for Prenatal Smoking Cessation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Womens Health Issues. 2018;28 pii: S1049-3867(17)30655-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2018.05.002. [Epub ahead of print]
  48. 48. Wen X, Eiden RD, Justicia-Linde FE, et al. A multicomponent behavioral intervention for smoking cessation during pregnancy: A nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2018:10. DOI: 10.1093/tbm/iby027
  49. 49. Campbell KA, Fergie L, Coleman-Haynes T, et al. Improving behavioral support for smoking cessation in pregnancy: What are the barriers to stopping and which behavior change techniques can influence these? Application of theoretical domains framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018;15(2):piiE359. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020359
  50. 50. Varghese S, Gasalberti D, Ahern K, Chang JC. An analysis of attitude toward infant sleep safety and SIDS risk reduction behavior among caregivers of newborns and infants. Journal of Perinatology. 2015;35(11):970-973
  51. 51. Mitchell EA, Blair PS. SIDS prevention: 3000 lives saved but we can do better. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 2012;125(1359):50-57
  52. 52. Jeffrey HE. Future directions in sudden unexpected death in infancy research. In: Duncan JR, Byard RW, editors. SIDS Sudden Infant and Early Childhood Death: The Past, the Present and the Future. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide Press; 2018
  53. 53. Dowling DA, Barsman SG, Forsythe P, Damato EG. Caring about Preemies’ Safe Sleep (CaPSS): An educational program to improve adherence to safe sleep recommendations by mothers of preterm infants. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing. 2018;32(4):366-372
  54. 54. Rubin R. Despite educational campaigns, US infants are still dying due to unsafe sleep conditions. JAMA. 2018;319(24):2466-2468
  55. 55. Carlin RF, Abrams A, Mathews A, et al. The impact of health messages on maternal decisions about infant sleep position: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Community Health. 2018;43:977-985. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-018-0514-0
  56. 56. Wall SN, Lee AC, Niermeyer S, English M, Keenan WJ, Carlo W, et al. Neonatal resuscitation in low-resource settings: What, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up? International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2009;107(Supp. 1):S47-S64
  57. 57. McGovern MC, Smith MBH. Causes of apparent life threatening events in infants: A systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2004;89:1043-1048
  58. 58. Nehme Z, Namachivayam S, Forrest A, Butt W, Bernard S, Smith K. Trends in the incidence and outcome of paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A 17-year observational study. Resuscitation. 2018 Jul;128:43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.04.030. Epub 2018 Ap. 25
  59. 59. Goto Y, Maeda T, Goto Y. Impact of dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation on neurological outcomes in children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: A prospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2014;3(3):e000499. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000499
  60. 60. Callahan JM, Fuchs SM, Committee on Paediatric Emergency Medicine. Advocating for life support training of children, parents, caregivers, school personnel, and the public. Pediatrics 2018;141(6). pii: e20180704. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-0704
  61. 61. Chan GJ, Valsangkar B, Kajeepeta S, Boundy EO, Wall S. What is kangaroo mother care? Systematic review of the literature. Journal of Global Health. 2016;6(1):010701. DOI: 10.7189/jogh.06.010701
  62. 62. Boundy EO, Dastjerdi R, Spiegelman D, et al. Kangaroo mother care and neonatal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20152238. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-2238
  63. 63. Sheridan E, Wright J, Small N, et al. Risk factors for congenital anomaly in a multiethnic birth cohort: An analysis of the Born in Bradford study. Lancet. 2013;382(9901):1350-1359. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61132-0. Epub 2013 Jul 4
  64. 64. Kapurubandara S, Melov S, Shalou E, Alahakoon I. Consanguinity and associated perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2016;56(6):599-604. DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12493. Epub 2016 Jul 11
  65. 65. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Improving Birth Outcomes, Bale JR, Stoll BJ, Lucas AO, editors. Reducing Birth Defects: Meeting the Challenge in the Developing World. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2003. 3. Interventions to Reduce the Impact of Birth Defects. Available from:
  66. 66. Up to date—Preterm Birth: Risk Factors, Interventions for Risk Reduction and Maternal Prognosis. Available from: [Accessed: 15-10-2018]
  67. 67. World Health Organization: Preterm Births. Available from: [Accessed 15-10-2018]
  68. 68. Newnham JP, Dickinson JE, Hart RJ, Pennell CE, Arresse CA, Keelan JA. Strategies to prevent preterm birth. Frontiers in Immunology. 2014;5:584
  69. 69. 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 northern India. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2008;86:796-804
  70. 70. Bhutta ZA, Memon ZA, Sooi S, Salat MS, Cousens S, Martines J. Implementing community-based perinatal care: Results from a pilot study in rural Pakistan. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2008;86:452-459
  71. 71. Kumar V, Mohanty S, Kumar A, 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(9644):1151-1162
  72. 72. Shealy KR, Li R, Benton-Davis S, Grummer-Strawn LM. The CDC Guide to Breastfeeding Interventions. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005. Available from:

Written By

Thillagavathie Pillay

Submitted: April 16th, 2018 Reviewed: November 29th, 2018 Published: January 21st, 2019