Impact of travel time to health facilities on perinatal outcomes: a systematic review with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Pregnant women and newborns requiring healthcare facility access |
| I — Intervention | Shorter travel time to health facilities (various thresholds: 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours) |
| C — Comparator | Longer travel times to health facilities |
| O — Outcomes | Stillbirth, perinatal mortality, neonatal mortality, out-of-hospital birth rates |
Bottom Line
This systematic review provides compelling evidence that shorter travel times to health facilities improve perinatal outcomes, with optimal survival rates for journeys under 30 minutes. The study challenges the commonly used 2-hour travel threshold in low-middle income countries, suggesting 30 minutes to 1 hour is preferable. However, substantial heterogeneity between studies limits the precision of pooled estimates. For Australian practice, these findings support maintaining accessible maternity services in rural areas and may inform decisions about service centralisation. The evidence reinforces that travel time standards must be balanced with quality of care considerations, particularly relevant for Australia's diverse geographic and healthcare delivery contexts.
Key Findings
P Value: Not explicitly reported for pooled estimates
Effect Size: OR 3.25 for interfacility journeys <30 minutes; OR 2.06-2.20 for journeys to hospitals across time thresholds
Primary Outcome: Perinatal survival rates by travel time thresholds
Nnt Or Sensitivity: 3-fold higher odds of survival for interfacility transfers under 30 minutes
Confidence Interval: 95% CI 1.90-5.57 for <30 min interfacility; 95% CI 1.60-2.65 for 2-hour threshold
Clinical Application
Implementation depends on healthcare infrastructure, transport systems, and geographic factors Highly relevant for rural and remote Australian communities; supports current RACGP guidelines on rural maternity care and may inform state-based maternity service planning Pregnant women and newborns in both high-income and low-middle income countries requiring facility-based care
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based global guidance on safe travel time for small or sick newborns who require transfer to health facilities after birth is lacking. A two-hour threshold is frequently cited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), while 30 minutes is commonly used in high-income countries (HICs). Although these thresholds are widely referenced, their empirical basis and consistency across levels of newborn care and journey types have not been systematically examined. This study synthesises the evidence linking travel time and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis to assess the impact of travel time or distance (home-to-facility or interfacility) on stillbirth, perinatal mortality, and neonatal mortality. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published studies from 2014 to 2023. Given substantial methodological heterogeneity, we used narrative synthesis as the primary analytical approach and conducted random-effects meta-analyses where studies were sufficiently comparable (≥2 with similar definitions and outcome windows), pooling effect estimates for travel time thresholds of 30 minutes, 1 hour, or 2 hours and travel distances of 5, 10, and 15 km. We assessed bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies. RESULTS: Of 8317 screened records, 166 were eligible for full-text review, with 37 studies meeting the inclusion criteria- All but two had low or moderate risk of bias. Most studies (n = 26) came from LMICs and documented higher perinatal survival with shorter journeys. Studies from HICs demonstrated lower out-of-hospital birth, lower morbidity, and lower mortality with shorter journeys though associations were weaker. Across the narrative synthesis, shorter travel times were consistently associated with better outcomes. Exploratory pooling suggested a greater than 3-fold higher odds of survival for interfacility journeys under 30 minutes (odds ratio (OR) = 3.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.90-5.57) and over 2-fold higher odds of survival for journeys from any location to hospitals at all thresholds (OR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.60-2.65 for 2 hours; OR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.46-3.33 for 1 hour; OR = 1.92; 95% CI = 1.10-3.34 for 30 minutes), though prediction intervals were wide, reflecting methodological and contextual diversity. CONCLUSIONS: We found that shorter journeys were associated with better perinatal outcomes, with the highest survival rates observed for journeys under 30 minutes to the hospital. Due to substantial contextual and methodological heterogeneity, pooled estimates should be interpreted as illustrative, rather than definitive. A travel time norm of 30 minutes or one hour is preferable to the two-hour threshold currently used in LMICs. To safeguard perinatal survival rates, any travel-time standard should be balanced with corresponding quality of care standards. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023460423.
References
- 1.Roder-DeWan, S., Ramadan, M., Ouma, P., Manu, A., Okiro, E. A., Strobel, N., Robert, B. N., Odipo, E., Macharia, P. M., Danso-Appiah, A., Goodman, D. C., Dube, Q., Gupta, G., Magge, H., & Edmond, K. (2026). Impact of travel time to health facilities on perinatal outcomes: a systematic review with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Global Health, 16, 04136. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.16.04136
Related Research
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ChatGPT in urogynecology: Comparing large language model responses to human experts
3 Aug 2026
Ultrasound in medicine & biology
A Systematic Review: The Application of Attention Mechanisms in Medical Ultrasound Image Processing
2 Aug 2026
Preventing chronic disease
Reducing Rates of Cesarean Delivery in Rural US Communities: A Systematic Review of Interventions and Approaches to Care
31 July 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service