Interventions addressing maternal and child health among the urban poor and homeless: an overview of systematic reviews

Abstract

BackgroundInequalities in access to and utilization of maternal and child health (MCH) care are hampering progress on the path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In a number of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) population subgroups at disproportionate risk of being left behind are the urban poor. Within this neglected group is the further neglected group of the homeless. Concomitantly, a number of interventions from the antenatal period onward have been piloted, tested, and scaled in these contexts. We carried out an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) to characterize the evidence around maternal and child health interventions relevant to urban poor homeless populations in LMICs.MethodsWe searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Health Systems Evidence and EBSCOhost databases for SRs published between January 2009 and 2020 (with an updated search through November 2021). Our population of interest was women or children from urban poor settings in LMICs; interventions and outcomes corresponded with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidance document. Each SR was assessed by two reviewers using established standard critical appraisal checklists. The overview was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021229107).ResultsIn a sample of 33 high quality SRs, we found no direct relevant evidence for pregnant and lactating homeless women (and children) in the reviewed literature. There was a lack of emphasis on evidence related to family planning, safe abortion care, and postpartum care of mothers. There was mixed quality evidence that the range of nutritional interventions had little, unclear or no effect on several child mortality and development outcomes. Interventions related to water, sanitation, and hygiene, ensuring acceptability of community health services and health promotion type programs could be regarded as beneficial, although location seemed to matter. Importantly, the risk of bias reporting in different reviews did not match, suggesting that greater attention to rigour in their conduct is needed.ConclusionThe generalizability of existing systematic reviews to our population of interest was poor. There is a clear need for rigorous primary research on MCH interventions among urban poor, and particularly homeless populations in LMICs, as it is as yet unclear whether the same, augmented, or altogether different interventions would be required.