The UN recommends the continu-ous, permanent, universal, and compulsory registration of ten vital events, including stillbirths.1 Yet, civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) improvement efforts have focused almost exclusively on birth and death registration, resulting in gains in those areas in recent decades.2 It is time to increase the completeness of stillbirth registration through its inclusion in CRVS strengthening efforts.

The complex and evolving picture of COVID-19-related mortality highlights the need for data to guide the response. Yet many countries are struggling to maintain their data systems, including the civil registration system, which is the foundation for detailed and continuously available mortality statistics. We conducted a search of country and development agency Web sites and partner and media reports describing disruptions to the civil registration of births and deaths associated with COVID-19 related restrictions.We found considerable intercountry variation and grouped countries according to the level of disruption to birth and particularly death registration. Only a minority of the 66 countries were able to maintain service continuity during the COVID-19 restrictions. In the majority, a combination of legal and operational challenges resulted in declines in birth and death registration. Few countries established business continuity plans or developed strategies to deal with the backlog when restrictions are lifted.Civil registration systems and the vital statistics they generate must be strengthened as essential services during health emergencies and as core components of the response to COVID-19. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 15, 2021: e1-e9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306203).

OBJECTIVES: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require data-driven public health action. There are limited publications on national health information systems that continuously generate health data. Given the need to develop these systems, we summarised their current status in low-income and middle-income countries. SETTING: The survey team jointly developed a questionnaire covering policy, planning, legislation and organisation of case reporting, patient monitoring and civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems. From January until May 2017, we administered the questionnaire to key informants in 51 Centers for Disease Control country offices. Countries were aggregated for descriptive analyses in Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Key informants in 15 countries responded to the questionnaire. Several key informants did not answer all questions, leading to different denominators across questions. The Ministry of Health coordinated case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 93% (14/15), 93% (13/14) and 53% (8/15) of responding countries, respectively. Domestic financing supported case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 86% (12/14), 75% (9/12) and 92% (11/12) of responding countries, respectively. The most common uses for system-generated data were to guide programme response in 100% (15/15) of countries for case reporting, to calculate service coverage in 92% (12/13) of countries for patient monitoring and to estimate the national burden of disease in 83% (10/12) of countries for CRVS. Systems with an electronic component were being used for case reporting, patient monitoring, birth registration and death registration in 87% (13/15), 92% (11/12), 77% (10/13) and 64% (7/11) of responding countries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most responding countries have a solid foundation for policy, planning, legislation and organisation of health information systems. Further evaluation is needed to assess the quality of data generated from systems. Periodic evaluations may be useful in monitoring progress in strengthening and harmonising these systems over time.