Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. METHODS: The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a 'healthy baby' composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born "healthy" in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional 'healthy and positive birth' of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441 . Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.

Views of parents, adults born preterm and professionals on linkage of real-world data of preterm babies.

OBJECTIVE: To explore views of parents of preterm babies, adults born preterm and professionals, on the linkage of real-world health and education data for research on improving future outcomes of babies born preterm. DESIGN: Three-stage mixed-methods participatory design involving focus groups, a national survey and interviews. Survey participants who expressed uncertainty or negative views were sampled purposively for invitation to interview. Mixed methods were used for data analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All data collection was online. Participants were: focus groups-17 parents; survey-499 parents, 44 adults born preterm (total 543); interviews-6 parents, 1 adult born preterm, 3 clinicians, 2 teachers. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified: (1) Data linkage and opt-out consent make sense for improving future outcomes. We found clear demand for better information on long-term outcomes and strong support for data linkage with opt-out consent as a means of achieving this. (2) Information requirements-what, how and when. There was support for providing information in different formats and discussing linkage near to, or following discharge from, the neonatal unit, but not sooner. (3) Looking to the future; the rights of young people. We identified a desire for individuals born preterm to be consulted in the future on the use of their data. CONCLUSION: With appropriate information provision, at the right time, parents, adults born preterm and professionals are supportive of data linkage for research, including where temporary identifiers and opt-out consent are used. Resources are being co-produced to improve communication about routine data linkage.

Group antenatal care: findings from a pilot randomised controlled trial of REACH Pregnancy Circles.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care has the potential to impact positively on maternal and child outcomes, but traditional models of care in the UK have been shown to have limitations and particularly for those from deprived populations. Group antenatal care is an alternative model to traditional individual care. It combines conventional aspects of antenatal assessment with group discussion and support. Delivery of group antenatal care has been shown to be successful in various countries; there is now a need for a formal trial in the UK. METHOD: An individual randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a model of group care (Pregnancy Circles) delivered in NHS settings serving populations with high levels of deprivation and diversity was conducted in an inner London NHS trust. This was an external pilot study for a potential fully powered RCT with integral economic evaluation. The pilot aimed to explore the feasibility of methods for the full trial. Inclusion criteria included pregnant with a due date in a certain range, 16 + years and living within specified geographic areas. Data were analysed for completeness and usability in a full trial; no hypothesis testing for between-group differences in outcome measures was undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria corresponding to five feasibility measures were set. Additional aims were to assess the utility of our proposed outcome measures and different data collection routes. A process evaluation utilising interviews and observations was conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants were randomised, two more than the a priori target. Three Pregnancy Circles of eight sessions each were run. Interviews were undertaken with ten pregnant participants, seven midwives and four other stakeholders; two observations of intervention sessions were conducted. Progression criteria were met at sufficient levels for all five measures: available recruitment numbers, recruitment rate, intervention uptake and retention and questionnaire completion rates. Outcome measure assessments showed feasibility and sufficient completion rates; the development of an economic evaluation composite measure of a 'positive healthy birth' was initiated. CONCLUSION: Our pilot findings indicate that a full RCT would be feasible to conduct with a few adjustments related to recruitment processes, language support, accessibility of intervention premises and outcome assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN66925258. Retrospectively registered, 03 April 2017.

Testing the effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles group antenatal care: protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care is an important public health priority. Women from socially disadvantaged, and culturally and linguistically diverse groups often have difficulties with accessing antenatal care and report more negative experiences with care. Although group antenatal care has been shown in some settings to be effective for improving women's experiences of care and for improving other maternal as well as newborn health outcomes, these outcomes have not been rigorously assessed in the UK. A pilot trial will be conducted to determine the feasibility of, and optimum methods for, testing the effectiveness of group antenatal care in an NHS setting serving populations with high levels of social deprivation and cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity. Outcomes will inform the protocol for a future full trial. METHODS: This protocol outlines an individual-level randomised controlled external pilot trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The two trial arms will be group care and standard antenatal care. The trial will involve the recruitment of 72 pregnant women across three maternity services within one large NHS Acute Trust. Baseline, outcomes and economic data will be collected via questionnaires completed by the participants at three time points, with the final scheduled for 4 months postnatal. Routine maternity service data will also be collected for outcomes assessment and economic evaluation purposes. Stakeholder interviews will provide insights into the acceptability of research and intervention processes, including the use of interpreters to support women who do not speak English. Pre-agreed criteria have been selected to guide the decision about whether or not to progress to a full trial. DISCUSSION: This pilot trial will determine if it is appropriate to proceed to a full trial of group antenatal care in this setting. If progression is supported, the pilot will provide authoritative high-quality evidence to inform the design and conduct of a trial in this important area that holds significant potential to influence maternity care, outcomes and experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN66925258. Registered 03 April 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Evaluation of community-level interventions to increase early initiation of antenatal care in pregnancy: protocol for the Community REACH study, a cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality maternity services is a priority for reducing inequalities in health outcomes for mothers and infants. Best practice includes women having their initial antenatal appointment within the first trimester of pregnancy in order to provide screening and support for healthy lifestyles, well-being and self-care in pregnancy. Previous research has identified inequalities in access to antenatal care, yet there is little evidence on interventions to improve early initiation of antenatal care. The Community REACH trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of engaging communities in the co-production and delivery of an intervention that addresses this issue. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a matched cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The unit of randomisation is electoral ward. The intervention will be delivered in 10 wards; 10 comparator wards will have normal practice. The primary outcome is the proportion of pregnant women attending their antenatal booking appointment by the 12th completed week of pregnancy. This and a number of secondary outcomes will be assessed for cohorts of women (n = approximately 1450 per arm) who give birth 2-7 and 8-13 months after intervention delivery completion in the included wards, using routinely collected maternity data. Eight hospitals commissioned to provide maternity services in six NHS trusts in north and east London and Essex have been recruited to the study. These trusts will provide anonymised routine data for randomisation and outcomes analysis. The process evaluation will examine intervention implementation, acceptability, reach and possible causal pathways. The economic evaluation will use a cost-consequences analysis and decision model to evaluate the intervention. Targeted community engagement in the research process was a priority. DISCUSSION: Community REACH aims to increase early initiation of antenatal care using an intervention that is co-produced and delivered by local communities. This pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated process and economic evaluation, aims to rigorously assess the effectiveness of this public health intervention, which is particularly complex due to the required combination of standardisation with local flexibility. It will also answer questions about scalability and generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: registration number 63066975 . Registered on 18 August 2015.

Effectiveness of a structured educational intervention using psychological delivery methods in children and adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the CASCADE intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and adolescents is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children <5 years. Fewer than 1 in 6 children and adolescents achieve recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values. METHODS: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial assessed the efficacy of a clinic-based structured educational group incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycemic control, quality of life and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents with T1D. 28 pediatric diabetes services were randomized to deliver the intervention or standard care. 362 children (8-16 years) with HbA1c≥8.5% were recruited. Outcomes were HbA1c at 12 and 24 months, hypoglycemia, admissions, self-management skills, intervention compliance, emotional and behavioral adjustment, and quality of life. A process evaluation collected data from key stakeholder groups in order to evaluate the feasibility of delivering the intervention. RESULTS: 298/362 patients (82.3%) provided HbA1c at 12 months and 284/362 (78.5%) at 24 months. The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months (intervention effect 0.11, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.50, p=0.584), or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.41, p=0.891). There were no significant changes in remaining outcomes. 96/180 (53%) families in the intervention arm attended at least 1 module. The number of modules attended did not affect outcome. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organizing groups and work and school commitments. Those with highest HbA1cs were less likely to attend. Mean cost of the intervention was £683 per child. CONCLUSIONS: Significant challenges in the delivery of a structured education intervention using psychological techniques to enhance engagement and behavior change delivered by diabetes nurses and dietitians in routine clinical practice were found. The intervention did not improve HbA1c in children and adolescents with poor control. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52537669, results.

Implementing a structured education program for children with diabetes: lessons learnt from an integrated process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is recognition of an urgent need for clinic-based interventions for young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus that improve glycemic control and quality of life. The Child and Adolescent Structured Competencies Approach to Diabetes Education (CASCADE) is a structured educational group program, using psychological techniques, delivered primarily by diabetes nurses. Composed of four modules, it is designed for children with poor diabetic control and their parents. A mixed methods process evaluation, embedded within a cluster randomized control trial, aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, and perceived impact of CASCADE. METHODS: 28 pediatric diabetes clinics across England participated and 362 children aged 8-16 years, with type 1 diabetes and a mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8.5 or above, took part. The process evaluation used a wide range of research methods. RESULTS: Of the 180 families in the intervention group, only 55 (30%) received the full program with 53% attending at least one module. Only 68% of possible groups were run. Staff found organizing the groups burdensome in terms of arranging suitable dates/times and satisfactory group composition. Some staff also reported difficulties in mastering the psychological techniques. Uptake, by families, was influenced by the number of groups run and by school, work and other commitments. Attendees described improved: family relationships; knowledge and understanding; confidence; motivation to manage the disease. The results of the trial showed that the intervention did not significantly improve HbA1c at 12 or 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic-based structured group education delivered by staff using psychological techniques had perceived benefits for parents and young people. Staff and families considered it a valuable intervention, yet uptake was poor and the burden on staff was high. Recommendations are made to inform issues related to organization, design, and delivery in order to potentially enhance the impact of CASCADE and future programs. CURRENT CONTROLLED TRIALS: ISRCTN52537669.

Structured, intensive education maximising engagement, motivation and long-term change for children and young people with diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluation - the CASCADE study.

BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and young people is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children under the age of 5 years. Fewer than one in six children and young people achieve glycosylated fraction of haemoglobin (HbA1c) values in the range identified as providing best future outcomes. There is an urgent need for clinic-based pragmatic, feasible and effective interventions that improve both glycaemic control and quality of life (QoL). The intervention offers both structured education, to ensure young people know what they need to know, and a delivery model designed to motivate self-management. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of providing a clinic-based structured educational group programme incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycaemic control, QoL and psychosocial functioning in a diverse range of young people. DESIGN: The study was a pragmatic, cluster randomised control trial with integral process and economic evaluation. SETTING: Twenty-eight paediatric diabetes services across London, south-east England and the Midlands. RANDOMISATION: Minimised by clinic size, age (paediatric or adolescent) and specialisation (district general hospital clinic or teaching hospital/tertiary clinic). ALLOCATION: Half of the sites were randomised to the intervention arm and half to the control arm. Allocation was concealed until after clinics had consented and the first participant was recruited. Where possible, families were blind to allocation until recruitment finished. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three health-care practitioners (14 teams) were trained in the intervention. The study recruited 362 children aged 8-16 years, diagnosed with T1D for > 12 months, with a mean 12-month HbA1c level of ≥ 8.5%. INTERVENTION: Two 1-day workshops taught intervention delivery. A detailed manual and resources were provided. The intervention consists of four group education sessions led by a paediatric diabetes specialist nurse with another team member. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was glycaemic control, assessed at the individual level using venous HbA1c values, measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes were directly and indirectly related to diabetes management, including hypoglycaemic episodes, hospital admissions, diabetes regimen, knowledge, skills and responsibility for diabetes management, intervention compliance, clinic utilisation, emotional and behavioural adjustment, and general and diabetes-specific QoL. PROCESS EVALUATION: Questionnaires, semistructured interviews, informal discussion following observation sessions, fieldwork notes and case note review were used to collect qualitative and quantitative data from key stakeholder groups at specific time points in the trial. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Primary and secondary analyses were intention-to-treat comparisons of outcomes at 12 and 24 months, using analysis of covariance with a random effect for clinic. Prespecified subgroup analyses based on age, gender, initial HbA1c value and socioeconomic status were estimated from models that included an interaction term. The economic analysis compared long-term costs and predicted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months [intervention effect 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.50; p = 0.584] or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.41; p = 0.891). A total of 298/362 patients (82.3%) provided blood samples at 12-month follow-up, and 284/362 (78.5%) provided blood samples at 24-month follow-up. Follow-up questionnaires were completed by 307 patients (85.3%) at 12 months and by 295 patients (81.5%) at 24 months. Intervention group parents at 12 months (95% CI 0.74; 0.03 to 1.52) and young people at 24 months (0.85; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.61) had higher scores on the diabetes family responsibility questionnaire. Young people reported reduced happiness with body weight at 12 months (-0.56; 95% CI -1.03 to -0.06). Only 68% of groups were run. Of the 180 families recruited, 96 (53%) attended at least one module. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organising groups, and work and school commitments. Young people with higher HbA1c levels were less likely to attend. Parents and young people who attended groups described improved family relationships, improved knowledge and understanding, greater confidence and increased motivation to manage diabetes. Twenty-four months after the intervention, nearly half of the young people reported that the groups had made them want to try harder and that they had carried on trying. A high-quality, complex, pragmatic trial of structured education can be delivered alongside standard care in NHS diabetes clinics. Health-care providers benefited from behaviour change skill training and can deliver pragmatic aspects of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-compliant structured education programme after relatively brief training. The process evaluation provides insight into aspects of the model, and highlights strengths and aspects that may have contributed to the failure to influence primary and secondary outcomes. Current NHS practice dominates CASCADE (Child and Adolescent Structured Competencies Approach to Diabetes Education) in that it achieves the same number of QALYs at a lower cost. The mean cost of providing the intervention was £5098 per site or £683 per child. Members of paediatric diabetes services trained to deliver the CASCADE structured education package using behaviour change techniques did not improve glycaemic control in patients compared with control subjects 1 and 2 years after the intervention. The training workshops for practitioners were well evaluated; however, more intensive training was needed. The intervention cost £683 per patient but was not cost-effective because it did not improve metabolic control. CONCLUSIONS: A high-quality, complex, pragmatic trial of structured education can be successfully conducted alongside standard care in NHS diabetes clinics. Pragmatic components of a NICE-compliant structured education programme can be successfully delivered following a relatively brief 2-day training while paediatric health-care professionals benefit from training in behaviour change skills. The study provides invaluable information on barriers and opportunities regarding future, similar interventions. A low dropout rate and good attendance for the subgroup that attended the intervention suggests there might be improved uptake if offered to young people with lower HbA1c. Testing whether this approach can be more successful with a robust ongoing supervisory element should be a target of further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52537669. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health outcomes of youth development programme in England: prospective matched comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of youth development in reducing teenage pregnancy, substance use, and other outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective matched comparison study. SETTING: 54 youth service sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=2724) aged 13-15 years at baseline deemed by professionals as at risk of teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, or school exclusion or to be vulnerable. INTERVENTION: Intensive, multicomponent youth development programme including sex and drugs education (Young People's Development Programme) versus standard youth provision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Various, including pregnancy, weekly cannabis use, and monthly drunkenness at 18 months. RESULTS: Young women in the intervention group more commonly reported pregnancy than did those in the comparison group (16% v 6%; adjusted odds ratio 3.55, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 9.50). Young women in the intervention group also more commonly reported early heterosexual experience (58% v 33%; adjusted odds ratio 2.53, 1.09 to 5.92) and expectation of teenage parenthood (34% v 24%; 1.61, 1.07 to 2.43). CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies, drunkenness, or cannabis use. Some results suggested an adverse effect. Although methodological limitations may at least partly explain these findings, any further implementation of such interventions in the UK should be only within randomised trials.