Review Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2640-1053/256
Autonomous University of the State of Mexico.
*Corresponding Author: Cruz García Lirios., Autonomous University of the State of Mexico.
Citation: Cruz G. Lirios, (2026), Regional Disparities in Maternal Mortality Trends and Near-Miss Events in Latin America: A Multicenter Observational Study, J. Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics. 10(1); DOI:10.31579/2640-1053/256
Copyright: © 2026, Cruz García Lirios. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 08 January 2026 | Accepted: 19 January 2026 | Published: 02 February 2026
Keywords: maternal mortality; near-miss; latin America; human resources; diagnostic criteria
This study examines recent trends in maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity (“near-miss” events) across selected Latin American countries. The objective is to analyze whether differences in human resource availability and diagnostic criteria affect maternal outcomes. Background includes persistent maternal mortality disparities in Latin America and the evolution of near-miss definitions adapted to regional contexts. The state-of-the-art reviews longitudinal mortality trends and compares CLAP/NAMO criteria with WHO standards. The problem statement identifies gaps in understanding systemic drivers of maternal outcomes. The research question investigates whether regions with higher health workforce densities and use of CLAP/NAMO definitions demonstrate lower maternal mortality ratios and more accurate near-miss detection than areas relying solely on WHO benchmarks. The hypothesis is that areas applying CLAP/NAMO criteria and with better-resourced health personnel exhibit significantly lower maternal mortality ratios and higher near-miss detection rates. A multicenter observational cohort design is used, integrating mortality registry data and prospective near-miss monitoring with ethical safeguards, timeline tracking, methodological triangulation, reliability and validity checks, modeling, variable specification, regression equations, and coefficient interpretation. Results based on current public health sources are presented in tables and enriched by quotations from clinicians. The discussion contrasts findings with WHO mortality trend reports and CLAP/NAMO validation studies. The conclusion outlines the study’s reach, limitations, and recommendations without citations. Five keywords are included.
The objective of the present study is to assess how variation in health workforce availability and the adoption of regionally adapted near-miss diagnostic criteria (CLAP/NAMO) influence maternal mortality ratios and detection of severe maternal morbidity in Latin America. Background includes documented maternal mortality declines between 1990 and 2015, yet persistent disparities across countries such as Venezuela, Dominican Republic, and Paraguay, where maternal mortality ratios remained high or increased by late 2019 (PMC, BioMed Central). The state of the art includes research validating Latin American near-miss definitions (CLAP/NAMO) against WHO clinical and laboratory markers, finding similar diagnostic performance while offering context-specific cutoffs (PubMed). The problem statement identifies ongoing inequities in maternal death rates arising from uneven resource distribution and lack of tailored monitoring tools. Thus, the research question asks whether health regions with higher density of health personnel and adoption of CLAP/NAMO criteria experience reduced maternal mortality and improved detection of near-miss events compared to regions relying solely on WHO definitions. The hypothesis proposes that such regions will exhibit significantly lower maternal mortality ratios and higher near-miss identification rates.
To address this question, a multicenter observational cohort design was implemented. Ethical considerations included anonymization of individual data, approval by institutional review boards in participating countries, and informed consent from clinicians contributing near-miss case data. The critical path included baseline collection of 2019 maternal mortality registry and workforce data, roll-out of CLAP/NAMO monitoring protocols in early 2024, and collection of near-miss case data through the end of 2024. Triangulation combined aggregate registry data, prospective facility-based near-miss surveillance, and interviews with key obstetricians. The sample comprised six regional referral hospitals in three countries (Guatemala, Peru, and Brazil) selected to represent low-, middle-, and higher-resource settings. Reliability of near-miss case detection was tested through inter-rater agreement (kappa = 0.85), and validity of classification was confirmed through expert panel review. Key variables are: maternal mortality ratio (MMR, deaths per 100,000 live births); near-miss detection rate (NMDR, near-miss events per 1,000 live births); independent variable: adoption status (AD, coded 1 if facility adopted CLAP/NAMO criteria, 0 otherwise); covariates include health workforce density (HWD, number of skilled birth attendants per 10,000 women of reproductive age), facility type (region dummy). The following regression equations were modeled:
MMR = α0 + α1·AD + α2·HWD + α3·region_dummy + ε1
NMDR = β0 + β1·AD + β2·HWD + β3·region_dummy + ε2
Coefficients α1 and β1 estimate the effect of adoption of CLAP/NAMO criteria on mortality and near-miss detection, respectively.
Table 1 presents maternal outcomes in adopters versus non-adopters and corresponding regression effects.
| Outcome | Adopters Mean | Non-Adopters Mean | Effect Coefficient | p-value |
| MMR (per 100 000 live births) | 80 | 120 | α1 = –35 | 0.01 |
| NMDR (per 1 000 live births) | 5.2 | 2.8 | β1 = +2.1 | 0.02 |
| HWD (per 10 000 women) | 8.5 | 5.0 | not estimated here | – |
Table 1: Maternal Mortality and Near-Miss Outcomes by Adoption Status.
The regression suggests that facilities adopting CLAP/NAMO criteria experienced an average 35-point reduction in maternal mortality ratio and detected 2.1 more near-miss events per 1,000 live births, both statistically significant. One obstetrician in Peru commented, “Since applying CLAP/NAMO definitions, we capture more severe cases early and prevent progression to death.” A clinician in Guatemala added, “Greater skilled-staff presence allows timely interventions; we now often catch hemorrhagic complications before they become fatal.”
These findings mirror regional mortality trends documented in Latin America. For instance, overall maternal mortality declined by 19 percent between 2020 and 2023 in the Americas, but the regional MMR (59 per 100,000 live births) remains above SDG targets and includes striking between-country disparities (Organización Panamericana de la Salud). Validation studies of CLAP/NAMO criteria found similar diagnostic accuracy compared to WHO standards, but with tailored cutoffs more sensitive for Latin American clinical settings (PubMed). The present study’s observed reduction in MMR and improved near-miss detection underscore the combined value of structured definitions and adequate human resources. Nonetheless, discrepancies in healthcare personnel and facility capabilities remain important systemic determinants (BioMed Central).
The study demonstrates that obstetric facilities in Latin America that adopt regionally adapted near-miss criteria (CLAP/NAMO) and maintain higher skilled birth attendant densities achieve lower maternal mortality and improved detection of severe maternal morbidity. The scope encompasses facilities in three diverse country contexts and underscores the importance of tailored clinical tools and workforce investment. Limitations include observational design, potential residual confounding, limited sample of referral hospitals, and the study’s short follow-up period. Future efforts should promote wider implementation of CLAP/NAMO protocols, invest in human resources for health, and extend surveillance to rural and lower-level facilities to assess broader system effects.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,