Maternal mortality: it's time to get political.

Nigeria has the 47th highest gross domestic product (GDP) worldwide and is the world’s 8th largest exporter of petroleum. It has a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) of 800/100 000 live births. In contrast, Sri Lanka is 78th on the GDP list but has an MMR of only 92. Among the wealthy countries, Sweden has the 20th highest GDP and a MMR of 2, while USA, despite being the richest country in the world, has a MMR of 17.1,2 If we are to reduce maternal mortality worldwide, it is crucial that we understand the reasons for the wide variation in MMRs. One would expect that the MMR would correlate with the prevalence of major complications of pregnancy, but such complications occur in a remarkably constant 15% or so of pregnancies throughout the world. Nor does the MMR correlate well with a country’s wealth as the examples above show. What is, however, highly predictive of a country’s MMR is the quality of its health services. Comparing each country’s MMR and healthcare quality (as defined in the World Health Organization World Health Report of 2000) shows the two to be closely correlated (Figure 1).2,3 ‘Quality of health care’ is used here in its holistic sense—not just as a measure of the best the country can provide in its large teaching hospitals and private clinics but how effectively good quality health care reaches the country’s poorest in rural areas well away from the capital. It also takes into account the health services’ effect on the nation’s health, the way the health workers treat individuals on a personal level (as regards dignity, confidentiality and client orientation) and the fairness of financial contributions. The UK provides a classic example of the importance of the effect of a good quality health service on maternal mortality rates. It is no coincidence that the major fall in its MMR coincided with the launch of the NHS in the 1940s which provided free care for all at the point of delivery.4 The quality of maternity care also improved greatly at this time as blood transfusions and antibiotics became available. The NHS made these advances available to the many and not just the privileged few. Conversely, the recent crisis at Northwick Park Hospital in London shows how quickly maternal mortality rates can rise if the quality of maternal care deteriorates.5 The impressive second report on the South African Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths emphasises the pivotal role of health services in reducing MMRs.6 Of their ten key recommendations, all but one relates to improvements in the health services rather than introducing new procedures or therapies. They recommend speeding up access to services (better ambulance services and referral systems), service development (better contraceptive/abortion services and improved antenatal screening) and improved quality of care (written protocols, optimising levels of staff and equipment, blood transfusion, partogram use and effective anaesthetic services). The one recommendation that is not directly health service related is the final one that calls for the empowerment of women. If tuberculosis is the disease of poor housing, and gonorrhoea a ‘social disease’, then surely maternal mortality is the classic example of a disease of poor health services. For those of us trying to reduce maternal mortality from a medical perspective, we will be unable to achieve fundamental change without a massive improvement in health services in those areas of the world that are currently poorly served. Indeed, as exemplified in the title of the BJOG 2005 supplement on the developing world, much of the research on DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01185.x www.blackwellpublishing.com/bjog Editorial