ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article

Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-centre cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]
PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Primary postpartum haemorrhage continues to cause considerable global maternal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for composite adverse outcomes in postpartum haemorrhage using multivariable logistic regression. The findings could potentially be used to anticipate and prevent composite adverse outcomes in postpartum haemorrhage.
Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out at Mpilo Central Hospital, a government tertiary referral centre, covering the period 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2019. Participants were included in the study if they had a diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage. Those variables that had a p<0.2 from the univariate logistic regression analyses were considered for multivariable logistic regression. The association between independent variables and the dependent variable was assessed using odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, to identify independent risk factors for composite adverse outcomes in PPH.
Results: The independent risk factors for composite adverse outcomes in postpartum haemorrhage were place of dwelling (AOR 4.57, 95% CI 1.87-11.12, p=0.01), prior history of a Caesarean section (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.10-6.00, p=0.03), APH (AOR 5.45, 95% CI 2.23-13.27, p<0.0001), antenatal haemoglobin level (AOR 19.64, 95% CI 1.44-268.50, p=0.03), and delivery by Caesarean section (AOR 10.21, 95% CI 4.39-23.74, p<0.0001). Blood loss was also an independent risk factor for composite adverse outcomes in postpartum haemorrhage with the following blood loss; 1001-1500 ml (AOR 9.94, 95% CI 3.68-26.88, p<0.0001), 500-1000 ml (AOR 41.27, 95% CI 11.32-150.54, p<0.0001), and 2001 ml (AOR 164.77, 95% CI 31.06-874.25, p<0.0001).
Conclusions: This study found that the independent predictors for composite adverse outcomes in PPH were rural dwelling, prior history of a Caesarean section, antenatal haemoglobin level, delivery by Caesarean section, and blood. In low- and middle-income countries, such information should help in increasing clinical vigilance and preventing maternal deaths.

Keywords

Postpartum haemorrhage, risk factors, composite adverse outcomes, low-resource settings

Introduction

Primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is defined as a cumulative blood loss from the genital tract of ≥500 mL or more following a normal vaginal delivery or ≥1,000 mL or more following a cesarean section within 24 hours of delivery evidenced by a rise in the pulse rate, and falling blood pressure13.

In 2017, approximately 810 women died from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and 94% of all maternal deaths occurred in low and lower middle-income countries4. In a systematic analysis, Say et al. found that low- and middle income countries accounted for 480,000 maternal deaths (32%) compared with 1200 (8%) in the developed regions5. PPH is the leading cause of maternal deaths in SSA6.

The multi-country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health reported the prevalence of PPH as 1.2%, with higher rates in developing countries than developed ones7. Other studies in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) reported rates of 1.6% in Zimbabwe, 16.6% in Southern Ethiopia, 9% in Uganda and 23.6% in Cameroon. 1,3,8,9, respectively. Ford et al. reported increasing PPH rates from 6.1% in 2003 to 8.3% in 2011 (p<0.0001) in Australia10.

Two-thirds of women with PPH having no identifiable risk factors11. Recognized risk factors for PPH include previous PPH, twin gestation, large baby, induction of labour, prolonged labour, operative delivery, preeclampsia, caesarean delivery, grand multiparity, maternal age 35 or above, and postdates1,8,1215.

Tort et al. used a multivariable logistic mixed model to identify factors that were significantly associated with PPH maternal death13. However, in this study PPH maternal death or serious morbidity were used as composite adverse outcomes.

The aim of this research was to documents risk factors for poor composite adverse outcome in PPH. This could help clinicians identify which women with PPH are at risk of composite adverse outcomes and increase further the clinical vigilance associated with the management of PPH thereby preventing deaths.

Methods

Study type, setting and participants

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out at Mpilo Central Hospital, a government tertiary referral centre, covering the period 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2019. Mpilo Central Hospital is situated in the township of Mzilikazi in Bulawayo. Bulawayo is the second largest city in Zimbabwe after the capital city Harare, with a population of 653,337 as of the 2012 census16. Participants were included in the study if they had a diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage within 24 hours of delivery at Mpilo Central Hospital. Women that delivered outside the hospital were excluded from the study.

Independent variables

The independent variables included socio-demographic factors, mode of delivery, fetal characteristics, blood loss, laboratory tests, causes of PPH and the management of PPH.

Main outcome measure

The main outcome of interest for the study was the composite adverse outcome which included maternal death or serious morbidity (either of hypovolaemic shock or haemoglobin <4 g/dL or massive blood transfusion >4 units or hysterectomy or admission to ICU or coagulopathy or major organ dysfunction), similar to the Delphi consensus study on PPH17.

Sample size calculation

The Cochran sample size formula was used to calculate the sample size as follows; n0 =z2pq/e2

where n0 =sample size

z = is the selected critical value of desired confidence level

p = is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population

q = is 1-p and e is the desired level of precision

Assuming the maximum variability, which is equal to 50% (p = 0.5) and taking 95% confidence level with ±5% precision, the calculation for the required sample size was as follows;

p = 0.5 and hence q = 1-0.5 = 0.5, e = 0.05; z = 1.96

So, n0 = (1.96)2(0.5) (0.5)/(0.05)2

= 384.16

=385

Data collection

Data collection was done using a paper data collection tool (see Extended data)18 that was used to collect secondary data from the labour ward delivery registers, and mortality registers. Hospital case notes were retrieved the clinical data were extracted.

Data analysis

Data were cleaned, coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, then exported to SPSS Version 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) for analysis. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed and presented as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Bivariate correlations of association between main independent variables and the outcome measures were performed using Pearson 2-tailed chi-square test. A p value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, and these were considered for the univariate logistic regression. Those variables that had a p<0.2 from the univariate logistic regression analyses were considered for multivariable logistic regression. The association between independent variables and the dependent variable was assessed using odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, to identify independent risk factors for composite adverse outcomes in PPH, holding other variables constant and adjusting for co-variates. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit was used to check if the model fitted well. A p< 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Ethical approval

The Ethics Committee at Mpilo Central Hospital made a ruling for all retrospective studies to go ahead in the institution from 2016 onwards as long as the data remained anonymous; the committee waived the requirement for patient consent. No ethical issues will arise during the study as all the data will remain anonymous with no identifying personal data. Minutes of the Committee’s inaugural meeting held on the 13th October 2016 set out the requirements of all the studies at the institution.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of participants

A total of 386 cases of PPH were recorded during the period 1 July 2016 to 30 October 2019. The summary of maternal and fetal characteristics are shown in the Supplementary Tables in the Extended data18. Deidentified results are available for each patient as Underlying data18.

Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes

Table 1 and Table 2 show the results of the multivariable logistic regression. Rural women were 4.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes compared to women from urban areas (AOR 4.57, 95% CI 1.87-11.12, p=0.01).

Table 1. Univariate and multivariate analysis between demographics and composite adverse outcome in PPH.

VariableUnivariate Odds
ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P–valueMultivariate
Odds ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P–value
LowerUpperLowerUpper
Age (years)
14–20
21–24
25–29
30–34
35 and above

Reference
1.87
3.38
3.42
9.48


0.33
0.72
0.70
2.10


10.61
15.79
16.74
42.75


0.48
0.12
0.13
0.003


1.31
1.65
1.92
3.33


0.16
0.19
0.21
0.35


10.88
14.04
18.01
31.55


0.80
0.65
0.57
0.29
Gravidity
1–2
3–4
4 and above

Reference
3.23
4.61


0.87
1.36


11.98
15.57


0.08
0.01


2.05
2.18


0.35
0.20


12.10
23.39


0.43
0.52
Parity
0–1
2–3
4 and above

Reference
1.41
2.91


0.61
1.40


3.27
6.08


0.42
0.004


0.80
1.30


0.14
0.21


4.61
8.00


0.80
0.78
Gestational age (weeks)
24–30
31–34
35–36
37–40
41 and above

Reference
0.83
0.54
0.18
0.18


0.20
0.16
0.06
0.05


3.43
1.87
0.54
0.66


0.80
0.33
0.002
0.01


2.55
3.46
0.97
0.84


0.36
0.61
0.22
0.16


17.88
19.61
4.15
4.38


0.35
0.16
0.96
0.83
Marital status
Single
Married
Divorced*
Reference
2.20

0.94

5.15

0.07

2.05

0.79

5.36

0.14
No. foetuses
Single
Multiple

Reference
0.27


0.04


2.02


0.20


0.16


0.02


1.33


0.10
HIV status
Negative
Positive

Reference
2.21


1.09


4.47


0.03


1.79


0.40


7.96


0.44
Antiretroviral therapy
No
Yes

Reference
1.99


1.00


3.97


0.05


1.46


0.71


3.01


0.31
Unbooked
No
Yes

Reference
2.49


1.10


5.63


0.03


0.20


0.01


1.16


0.06
Place of dwelling
Urban
Rural

Reference
4.71


2.30


9.67


<0.0001


4.57


1.87


11.12


0.001

*Not enough data for regression analysis

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis between risk factors, blood tests and interventions and composite adverse outcome in PPH.

VariableUnivariate
Odds ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P-valueMultivariate
Odds ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P-value
LowerUpperLowerUpper
Previous LSCS
No
Yes

Reference
3.11


1.50


6.42


0.002


2.57


1.10


6.00


0.03
Preeclampsia
No
Yes

Reference
1.51


0.76


3.00


0.24


1.50


0.69


3.28


0.31
APH
No
Yes

Reference
7.08


3.45


14.55


<0.0001


5.45


2.23


13.27


<0.0001
IUD
No
Yes

Reference
5.76


2.66


12.46


<0.0001


2.12


0.79


5.70


0.14
ANC Hb (g/dL)
0-5.99
6-10.99
11 and above

24.89
1.12
Reference
2.63
0.52
235.46
2.43
0.01
0.77
19.64
1.53
1.44
0.61
268.50
3.80
0.03
0.36
Mode of delivery
NVD
LSCS
Vacuum, forceps*
Reference
12.92

5.77

28.93

<0.0001

10.21

4.39

23.74

<0.0001
Birth weight (g)
0-1500
1501-2500
2501-4000
4001 and above

Reference
0.61
0.21
0.18


0.19
0.08
0.01


1.92
0.61
1.08


0.40
0.004
0.06


1.89
0.84
0.38


0.29
012
0.02


12.23
5.65
8.55


0.50
0.85
0.54
Blood loss (ml)
500-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
2001 and above

Reference
9.95
31.36
86.25


4.02
10.36
22.23


24.67
94.97
334.69


<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001


9.94
41.27
164.77


3.68
11.32
31.06


26.88
150.54
874.25


<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Post-delivery Hb (g/dL)
0-5.99
6-10.99
11 and above

9.03
2.19
Reference
2.70
0.86
30.21
5.55
<0.0001
0.10
4.73
1.33
0.95
0.42
23.58
4.22
0.06
0.63
Perineal trauma
No
Yes

Reference
0.31


0.07


1.31


0.11


1.16


0.11


12.23


0.90
Uterine atony
No
Yes

Reference
2.20


0.84


5.78


0.11


1.91


0.42


8.73


0.40
Ruptured uterus
No
Yes

Reference
3.81


1.12


12.94


0.03


1.34


0.18


10.13


0.78
Oxytocin drip
No
Yes

Reference
0.39


0.16


0.96


0.04


0.30


0.05


2.01


0.22
Intravenous fluids
No
Yes

Reference
0.45


0.14


1.41


0.17


0.90


0.14


6.03


0.91
Perineal repairs
No
Yes

Reference
2.10


0.03


1.57


0.13


0.43


0.02


8.10


0.58

*Vacuum, forceps not enough data for regression analysis

History of Caesarean section

Women with a prior history of a Caesarean section were statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. Such women were 2.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH, compared to women without such history (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.10-6.00, p=0.03).

APH

APH was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. Women who presented with APH were 5.5 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared to women who had no APH (AOR 5.45, 95% CI 2.23-13.27, p<0.0001).

Antenatal haemoglobin count

Antenatal haemoglobin count was also statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. Women with haemoglobin counts of 0–5.99 g/dL were 19.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared with women with haemoglobin counts of 11 g/dL and above (AOR 19.64, 95% CI 1.44-268.50, p=0.03).

Delivery by Caesarean section

Delivery by Caesarean section was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. Women who had a Caesarean section were 10.2 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared to women who delivered vaginally (AOR 10.21, 95% CI 4.39-23.74, p<0.0001).

Blood loss

Blood loss was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. The odds rose significantly higher as the amount of blood loss increased. Women who lost 1001–1500 ml of blood were 9.9 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes, compared to women that lost 500–1000 ml (AOR 9.94, 95% CI 3.68-26.88, p<0.0001). The odds rose to 41.3 times more like to be associated with composite adverse outcomes in those women who lost 1501–2000ml compared to those women who lost 500–1000 ml (AOR 41.27, 95% CI 11.32-150.54, p<0.0001). Whereas women who lost 2001 ml and above were 164.8 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared to women who lost 500–1000 ml (AOR 164.77, 95% CI 31.06-874.25, p<0.0001).

Discussion

PPH rates have been reported to be rising in both low-income and high-income countries11,19. This means that PPH will remain an important global subject. The strength of this research is that it involves a large homogenous group of patients with PPH, in SSA where PPH continues to contribute significantly to global mortality and morbidity.

Rural women were 4.6 times most likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes compared to women from urban areas (AOR 4.57, 95% CI 1.87-11.12, p=0.01). National governments need to made healthcare accessible to rural women so that the Sustainable Development Goals on Maternal Mortality to reduce global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 20304 could be achievable.

Women with a prior history of a Caesarean section were statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. These women are not only at risk of developing a PPH (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.02-10.3)20, but the women were 2.6 times most likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH, compared to women without such history (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.10-6.00, p=0.03). The means that women with a prior history of a Caesarean section should receive extra clinical vigilance.

APH was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH. Women who presented with APH were 5.5 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared to women who had no APH (AOR 5.45, 95% CI 2.23-13.27, p<0.0001).

Women with haemoglobin levels of 0–5.99 g/dL were 19.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared with women with haemoglobin levels of 11 g/dL and above (AOR 19.64, 95% CI 1.44-268.50, p=0.03). Anaemia should be screened for antenatally and women should receive treatment so that they enter labour with normal haemoglobin counts.

Women who had a Caesarean section were 10.2 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared to women who delivered vaginally (AOR 10.21, 95% CI 4.39-23.74, p<0.0001). Women would have had Caesarean sections should be closely monitored post-operatively.

Women who lost 2001 ml of blood and above were 164.8 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes in PPH compared to women who lost 500–1000ml (AOR 164.77, 95% CI 31.06-874.25, p<0.0001). The amount of blood loss was found to be related to adverse maternal outcomes19. Prompt, effective management of PPH.19, should be the aim to reduce the amount of blood loss and prevent the development of composite adverse outcomes.

Limitations

The major limitation of this study is that it was a retrospective, single-centre study that used secondary data. This could limit the generalizability of its findings to other centres of low-resourced settings.

Conclusions

The independent predictors for composite adverse outcomes in PPH were rural dwelling, prior history of a Caesarean section, antenatal haemoglobin level, and delivery by Caesarean section. Blood loss was also an independent predictor for composite adverse outcomes in PPH. Crucially, this new information should help in increasing clinical vigilance and preventing maternal deaths especially in low- and middle-income countries were PPH mortality is of high prevalence. Regular on-site training of staff can focus on drilling on these important issues and can improve outcomes21.

Data availability

Underlying data

Mendeley Data: Composite adverse outcomes in primary PPH. https://doi.org/10.17632/wjtn8rmgcc.318.

This project contains the following underlying data:

  • PPH-Data-Share (XLSX). The raw de-identified data gathered from each patient examined in this study.

de-identified individual-level data for all patients.

Extended data

Mendeley Data: Composite adverse outcomes in primary PPH. https://doi.org/10.17632/wjtn8rmgcc.318.

This project contains the following extended data:

  • Data Collection Sheet-PPH (DOCX).

  • Supplementary tables - PPH mortality (DOCX).

    • Table 1: Maternal and fetal characteristics.

    • Table B: Socio-demographic characteristics of study patients.

    • Table C: Present risk factors for PPH

    • Table D: Fetal birth weight, blood loss and causes of PPH

    • Table E: Management and outcomes in PPH

    • Table F: Bivariate correlations between independent variables and composite adverse outcome.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Ngwenya S. Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-centre cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22769.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Views
8
Cite
Reviewer Report 18 Sep 2020
Eba Abdisa, Department of Psychiatry, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Institute of Health Sciences, Wollega University, Nekemte, Ethiopia 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 8
Title:  Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum hemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-center cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
  • The title seems interesting, particularly it tried to address the problem of
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Abdisa E. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-centre cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25139.r69904)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
12
Cite
Reviewer Report 26 Aug 2020
Michael Johnson Mahande, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania 
Not Approved
VIEWS 12
Risk factors for composite adverse postpartum haemorrhage in a low rsources setting: a single-centre cross sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Section
Comment, question, suggestion.

Abstract
  1. The
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Mahande MJ. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-centre cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25139.r64325)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
22
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Aug 2020
Jaffu O. Chilongola, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Kilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute, Moshi, Tanzania 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 22
  1. It is surprising that this manuscript has only one author. This means the lone author did everything from conceiving the ideas, data collection, analysis, writing the manuscript. It has to be confirmed that NO one else has
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Chilongola JO. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-centre cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25139.r66260)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 15 Oct 2020
    Solwayo Ngwenya, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Box 2096 Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
    15 Oct 2020
    Author Response
    Reviewer 1
    1. It is surprising that this manuscript has only one author. This means the lone author did everything from conceiving the ideas, data collection, analysis, writing the
    ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 15 Oct 2020
    Solwayo Ngwenya, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Box 2096 Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
    15 Oct 2020
    Author Response
    Reviewer 1
    1. It is surprising that this manuscript has only one author. This means the lone author did everything from conceiving the ideas, data collection, analysis, writing the
    ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.