SummaryBackgroundPreterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. Although preterm survival rates have increased in high-income countries, preterm newborns still die because of a lack of adequate newborn care in many low-income and middle-income countries. We estimated global, regional, and national rates of preterm birth in 2014, with trends over time for some selected countries.MethodsWe systematically searched for data on preterm birth for 194 WHO Member States from 1990 to 2014 in databases of national civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS). We also searched for population-representative surveys and research studies for countries with no or limited CRVS data. For 38 countries with high-quality data for preterm births in 2014, data are reported directly. For countries with at least three data points between 1990 and 2014, we used a linear mixed regression model to estimate preterm birth rates. We also calculated regional and global estimates of preterm birth for 2014.FindingsWe identified 1241 data points across 107 countries. The estimated global preterm birth rate for 2014 was 10·6% (uncertainty interval 9·0–12·0), equating to an estimated 14·84 million (12·65 million–16·73 million) live preterm births in 2014. 12· 0 million (81·1%) of these preterm births occurred in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Regional preterm birth rates for 2014 ranged from 13·4% (6·3–30·9) in North Africa to 8·7% (6·3–13·3) in Europe. India, China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia accounted for 57·9 million (41×4%) of 139·9 million livebirths and 6·6 million (44×6%) of preterm births globally in 2014. Of the 38 countries with high-quality data, preterm birth rates have increased since 2000 in 26 countries and decreased in 12 countries. Globally, we estimated that the preterm birth rate was 9×8% (8×3–10×9) in 2000, and 10×6% (9×0–12×0) in 2014.InterpretationPreterm birth remains a crucial issue in child mortality and improving quality of maternal and newborn care. To better understand the epidemiology of preterm birth, the quality and volume of data needs to be improved, including standardisation of definitions, measurement, and reporting.FundingWHO and the March of Dimes.

No abstract

Background Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi‐morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005. Objectives Our aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on: • patient outcomes; • processes of care; and • utilisation, including volume and cost. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library ( ), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to ‘Studies awaiting classification’. Selection criteria Randomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis. Main results For this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle‐income country, and all other studies in high‐income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and foll...