The reliability of the information on congenital defects listed in birth certificates of the Live Birth Information System (SINASC) in the City of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil, was evaluated. A descriptive study that reviewed all 15,249 birth certificates from 2003 to 2007 compared the data with information from medical records and death certificates. Errors in accuracy and precision, mainly related to the description of the anomaly when it was transcribed from medical records to the birth certificates, in addition to coding and the input to SINASC, diminished the reliability of the birth certificates as a source of information on congenital defects. The results suggested that the involvement of the Municipal Health Department is essential to improve SINASC, because this is the location of the coding and input system, and training of the professionals who fill out the birth certificates. With guidance on the importance and function of the birth certificates, SINASC can become an excellent monitoring and surveillance system for congenital defects.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the neonatal screening program for hemoglobinopathies in São Carlos, Southeast Brazil, by investigating a series of cases in which the screening test was abnormal. More specifically, it was aimed to know the information regarding the neonatal screening received by mothers at the hospital and at primary health care, in addition to information related to genetic counseling. METHODS: A descriptive study that enrolled 119 mothers, accounting for 73% of all children born between 2010 and 2011 with abnormal results of neonatal screening for hemoglobinopathies. The mothers completed a questionnaire that assessed the information received at hospital and primary health care, and issues related to genetic counseling. Descriptive statistics was performed. RESULTS: Of the 119 participating mothers, 69 (58%) had children with sickle cell trait, 22 (18.5%) with hemoglobin C trait, 18 (15.1%) with alpha thalassemia trait and, in 10 cases (8.4%), the result was inconclusive. At the hospital, 118 mothers (99.2%) received information about where to go to collect the test and 115 (96.6%) were informed about the correct time to collect the test. Only 4 mothers (3.4%) were informed about which diseases are investigated and the risks of not performing the screening. Seventeen mothers (14.3%) recognized the difference between trait and disease, and 42 (35.3%) considered that a positive screening test could have implications for future pregnancies. In 70 cases (58.8%), the child's physician was not informed about the screening test results. CONCLUSIONS: The neonatal screening program needs further improvement. In both scenarios investigated, health professionals demonstrated a lack of training in providing information to mothers and families.

Objective: To assess the prevalence of congenital defects and to investigate their maternal and perinatal associated aspects by reviewing Birth Certificates. Methods:Among all born alive infants from January 2003 to December 2007 in Maternidade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia of São Carlos, Southeast Brazil (12,199 infants), cases were identified as the newborns whose Birth Certificates registered any congenital defect. The same sex neonate born immediately after the case was chosen as a control. In total, 13 variables were analyzed: six were maternal related, three represented labor and delivery conditions and four were linked to fetal status. The chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the variables, being significant p<0.05. Results: The prevalence of congenital defects was 0.38% and the association of two or more defects represented 32% of all cases. The number of mothers whose education level was equal or less than eight years was significantly higher among the group with birth defects (p=0.047). A higher frequency of prematurity (p<0.001) and cesarean delivery (p=0.004) was observed among children with birth defects. This group also showed lower birth weight and Apgar scores in the 1st and the 5th minute (p<0.001). Conclusions: The prevalence of congenital defect of 0.38% is possibly due to underreporting. The defects notified in the Birth Certificates were only the most visible ones, regardless of their severity. There is a need of adequate epidemiological monitoring of birth defects in order to create and expand prevention and treatment programs.

No abstract