Opinion
Saving Uganda’s newborn babies – more of the same is not enoughPublish Date: Apr 15, 2014
newvision
  • mail
  • img

By Dr. Peter Waiswa

The other day while visiting Sweden a friend of mine told me he has six children; among these was one his family was expecting in four months. I wondered how he could count a pregnancy to be a baby.

In Uganda many women know that they cannot count a pregnancy to be a baby or indeed whether the mother will survive pregnancy because of a weak health care system.

In many Ugandan communities, the pregnancy is called ekintu or a thing, and babies are not named until one month when survival is more assured.

In other words, Ugandans do not trust the system in which women become pregnant, give birth or in which babies are born and nurtured.
 

As we move to the end of the Millennium Development Goals, we see that Uganda has reduced death of children before five years by about 40% which is commendable.

However, almost one in three of the children who die do so before five years die in the first month of life, the neonatal period, and of these, the majority die on the day of birth.

In Uganda, we lose 69,000 babies per year or about 39,000 deaths and another 30,000 stillbirths. For most of the so called stillbirths, the woman actually starts labour when the baby is alive, but dies during the process because of poor quality health services.  In other words, our performance as a country on the care at the time of birth is dismal.

Global newborn specialists recently estimated that at the current rate of reduction in death, it will take an African newborn about 155 years to have the same survival chance as those in the richest countries a century before, yet now we have new interventions. This is unacceptable in the modern era.
 

Child deaths have reduced for a number of reasons including immunisation, malaria control efforts, and access to care including use of the private sector, improvements in water access and hygiene, and general improvement in the standard of living.

However, most of these interventions cannot help a woman in labour or a newly born sick baby. What they need is high quality care during and immediately after labour, and this should be provided by skilled and motivated health workers working in an environment which can save mothers.
 

Unfortunately, the current policies and programmes in Uganda prioritise survival of older children and not newborns. For instance, whereas policies allow older children to be treated at all levels including being treated by village health team members and health workers at health centre II; it is the contrary for newborn babies, despite their extreme vulnerability.
 

The current policy does not allow important drugs, equipment, and skills for newborn babies to be availed at these lower levels of health care, and yet it is these that are most accessible.

Instead, the policy recommends referral for sick newborns to higher levels, something our own research shows does not work.

A sick newborn can die in minutes or a few hours, if quality care is not provided immediately. More so, our Ugandan programmes that are donor driven have in the past two decades prioritised vertical programmes related to malaria and HIV/AIDS and maternal and newborn health was forgotten.

Uganda now has an ambitious “sharpened” reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health plan but its implementation modalities are not clear.

As a country, we must use science to drive policies and programmes. Newborn health constitutes the highest burden of disease, and must receive the policy, programme, funding and advocacy response it needs.
 

The writer is a lecturer at Makerere University and a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

The statements, comments, or opinions expressed through the use of New Vision Online are those of their respective authors, who are solely responsible for them, and do not necessarily represent the views held by the staff and management of New Vision Online.

New Vision Online reserves the right to moderate, publish or delete a post without warning or consultation with the author.Find out why we moderate comments. For any questions please contact digital@newvision.co.ug

  • mail
  • img
blog comments powered by Disqus
Also In This Section
MH17 plane crash: Who did it? What next?
Maybe the crew who launched the missile that brought down Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on Thursday afternoon were trained professionals, but it seems unlikely....
Over liberalization: What about the capital markets?
Various individuals, private businessmen and even business associations have raised concerns about the high interest rates charged by commercial banks....
Develop an environmental crime database
Environmental pollution harms Ugandan society by wasting the riches of our natural resources. In particular, pollution lowers the agricultural output of our lands....
Why Lubigi project provides missing link to Kampala’s sewage
Completion of sewage treatment facilities at Kinawataka Lubigi, Nakivubo, and Nalukolongo will offer much longed-for relief for people in and around Kampala....
Restocking Teso cattle
The re-stocking exercise in Teso kicked off few months ago and the community has expressed gratitude to President Yoweri Museveni for fulfilling one of his pledges....
Why you need to buy locally grown food
You’ve probably been told many times that you should buy locally grown food. You’ve been hearing the campaign “Buy local, buy Ugandan” many times!...
Should government review powers of kings?
Yes
No
Can't Say
follow us
subscribe to our news letter