A consensus statement on perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for post-pandemic recovery and re-build.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic posed a significant lifecourse rupture, not least to those who had specific physical vulnerabilities to the virus, but also to those who were suffering with mental ill health. Women and birthing people who were pregnant, experienced a perinatal bereavement, or were in the first post-partum year (i.e., perinatal) were exposed to a number of risk factors for mental ill health, including alterations to the way in which their perinatal care was delivered. Methods: A consensus statement was derived from a cross-disciplinary collaboration of experts, whereby evidence from collaborative work on perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic was synthesised, and priorities were established as recommendations for research, healthcare practice, and policy. Results: The synthesis of research focused on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on perinatal health outcomes and care practices led to three immediate recommendations: what to retain, what to reinstate, and what to remove from perinatal mental healthcare provision. Longer-term recommendations for action were also made, categorised as follows: Equity and Relational Healthcare; Parity of Esteem in Mental and Physical Healthcare with an Emphasis on Specialist Perinatal Services; and Horizon Scanning for Perinatal Mental Health Research, Policy, & Practice. Discussion: The evidence base on the effect of the pandemic on perinatal mental health is growing. This consensus statement synthesises said evidence and makes recommendations for a post-pandemic recovery and re-build of perinatal mental health services and care provision.

Inside the 'imperfect mosaic': Minority ethnic women's qualitative experiences of race and ethnicity during pregnancy, childbirth, and maternity care in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Persistent, high rates of maternal mortality amongst ethnic minorities is one of the UK's starkest examples of racial disparity. With greater risks of adverse outcomes during maternity care, ethnic minority women are subjected to embedded, structural and systemic discrimination throughout the healthcare service. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were undertaken with minority ethnic women who had recent experience of UK maternity care. Data pertaining to ethnicity and race were subject to iterative, inductive coding, and constant comparison through Grounded Theory Analysis to test a previously established theory: The 'Imperfect Mosaic'. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: A related theory emerged, comprising four themes: 'Stopping Short of Agentic Birth'; 'Silenced and Stigmatised through Tick-Box Care'; 'Anticipating Discrimination and the Need for Advocacy'; and 'Navigating Cultural Differences'. The new theory: Inside the 'Imperfect Mosaic', demonstrates experiences of those who received maternity care which directly mirrors experiences of those who provide care, as seen in the previous theory we set-out to test. However, the current theory is based on more traditional and familiar notions of racial discrimination, rather than the nuanced, subtleties of socio-demographic-based micro-aggressions experienced by healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the need for the following actions: Prioritisation of bodily autonomy and agency in perinatal physical and mental healthcare; expand awareness of social and cultural issues (i.e., moral injury; cultural safety) within the NHS; and undertake diversity training and support, and follow-up of translation of the training into practice, across (maternal) health services.

Reflective, pragmatic, and reactive decision-making by maternity service providers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic health system shock: a qualitative, grounded theory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women were identified as having particular vulnerability to severe symptomatology of SARS-CoV-2 infection, so maternity services significantly reconfigured their care provision. We examined the experiences and perceptions of maternity care staff who provided care during the pandemic in South London, United Kingdom - a region of high ethnic diversity with varied levels of social complexity. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study, as part of a service evaluation between August and November 2020, using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a range of staff (N = 29) working in maternity services. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory analysis appropriate to cross-disciplinary health research. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: Maternity healthcare professionals provided their views, experiences, and perceptions of delivering care during the pandemic. Analysis rendered three emergent themes regarding decision-making during reconfigured maternity service provision, organised into pathways: 1) 'Reflective decision-making'; 2) 'Pragmatic decision-making'; and 3) 'Reactive decision-making'. Whilst pragmatic decision-making was found to disrupt care, reactive-decision-making was perceived to devalue the care offered and provided. Alternatively, reflective decision-making, despite the difficult working conditions of the pandemic, was seen to benefit services, with regards to care of high-quality, sustainability of staff, and innovation within the service. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making within maternity care was found to take three forms - where at best changes to services could be innovative, at worst they could cause devaluation in care being delivered, and more often than not, these changes were disruptive. With regard to positive changes, healthcare providers identified staff empowerment, flexible working patterns (both for themselves and collectively as teams), personalised care delivery, and change-making in general, as key areas to capitalise on current and ongoing innovations borne out of the pandemic. Key learnings included a focus on care-related, meaningful listening and engagement of staff at all levels, in order to drive forward high-quality care and avoid care disruption and devaluation.

Precarity and preparedness during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A qualitative service evaluation of maternity healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has devastated populations, posing unprecedented challenges for healthcare services, staff and service-users. In the UK, rapid reconfiguration of maternity healthcare service provision changed the landscape of antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care. This study aimed to explore the experiences of maternity services staff who provided maternity care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to inform future improvements in care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative interview service evaluation was undertaken at a single maternity service in an NHS Trust, South London. Respondents (n = 29) were recruited using a critical case purposeful sample of maternity services staff. Interviews were conducted using video-conferencing software, and were transcribed and analyzed using Grounded Theory Analysis appropriate for cross-disciplinary health research. The focus of analysis was on staff experiences of delivering maternity services and care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: A theory of "Precarity and Preparedness" was developed, comprising three main emergent themes: "Endemic precarity: A health system under pressure"; "A top-down approach to managing the health system shock"; and "From un(der)-prepared to future flourishing". CONCLUSIONS: Maternity services in the UK were under significant strain and were inherently precarious. This was exacerbated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which saw further disruption to service provision, fragmentation of care and pre-existing staff shortages. Positive changes are required to improve staff retention and team cohesion, and ensure patient-centered care remains at the heart of maternity care.

On race and ethnicity during a global pandemic: An 'imperfect mosaic' of maternal and child health services in ethnically-diverse South London, United Kingdom.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought racial and ethnic inequity into sharp focus, as Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic people were reported to have greater clinical vulnerability. During the pandemic, priority was given to ongoing, reconfigured maternity and children's healthcare. This study aimed to understand the intersection between race and ethnicity, and healthcare provision amongst maternity and children's healthcare professionals, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: A qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews (N = 53) was undertaken with maternity (n = 29; August-November 2020) and children's (n = 24; June-July 2021) healthcare professionals from an NHS Trust in ethnically-diverse South London, UK. Data pertinent to ethnicity and race were subject to Grounded Theory Analysis, whereby data was subjected to iterative coding and interpretive analysis. Using this methodology, data are compared between transcripts to generate lower and higher order codes, before super-categories are formed, which are finally worked into themes. The inter-relationship between these themes is interpreted as a final theory. Findings: Grounded Theory Analysis led to the theory: An 'Imperfect Mosaic', comprising four themes: (1) 'A System Set in Plaster'; (2) 'The Marginalised Majority'; (3) 'Self-Discharging Responsibility for Change-Making'; and (4) 'Slow Progress, Not No Progress'. The NHS was observed to be brittle, lacking plasticity to deliver change at pace. Overt racism based on skin colour has been replaced by micro-aggressions between in-groups and out-groups, defined not just by ethnicity, but by other social determinants. Contemporaneously, responsibility for health, wellbeing, and psychological safety in the workplace is discharged to, and accepted by, the individual. Interpretation: Our findings suggest three practicable solutions: (1) Representation of marginalised groups at all NHS levels; (2) Engagement in cultural humility which extends to other social factors; and (3) Collective action at system and individual levels, including prioritising equity over simplistic notions of equality. Funding: This service evaluation was supported by the King's College London King's Together Rapid COVID-19 Call, successfully awarded to Laura A. Magee, Sergio A. Silverio, Abigail Easter, & colleagues (reference:- 204823/Z/16/Z), as part of a rapid response call for research proposals. The King's Together Fund is a Wellcome Trust funded initiative.

The cost-effectiveness of antenatal and postnatal education and support interventions for women aimed at promoting breastfeeding in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is associated with health benefits to mothers and babies and cost-savings to the health service. Breastfeeding rates in the UK are low for various reasons including cultural barriers, inadequate support to initiate and sustain breastfeeding, lack of information, or choice not to breastfeed. Education and support interventions have been developed aiming at promoting breastfeeding rates. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of such interventions for women, initiated antenatally or in the first 8 weeks postnatally, aiming at improving breastfeeding rates, in the UK. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of a breastfeeding intervention from the perspective of health and personal social services in England. Data on intervention effectiveness and the benefits of breastfeeding were derived from systematic reviews. Other model input parameters were obtained from published sources, supplemented by expert opinion. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the modelled intervention added on standard care versus standard care was £51,946/QALY, suggesting that the intervention is not cost-effective under National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria in England. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the cost-effectiveness of the intervention improved as its effectiveness increased and intervention cost decreased. At the base-case effect (increase in breastfeeding rates 16-26 weeks after birth by 19%), the intervention was cost-effective (<£20,000/QALY) if its cost per woman receiving the intervention became ≈£40-£45. At the base-case cost (£84), the intervention was cost-effective if it increased breastfeeding rates by at least 35-40%. CONCLUSIONS: Available breastfeeding interventions do not appear to be cost-effective under NICE criteria in England. Future breastfeeding interventions need to have higher effectiveness or lower cost compared with currently available interventions in order to become cost-effective. Public health and other societal interventions that protect, promote and support breastfeeding may be key in improving breastfeeding rates in the UK.

Can birth outcome inequality be reduced using targeted caseload midwifery in a deprived diverse inner city population? A retrospective cohort study, London, UK.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To report maternal and newborn outcomes of pregnant women in areas of social deprivation in inner city London. (2) To compare the effect of caseload midwifery with standard care on maternal and newborn outcomes in this cohort of women. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Four council wards (electoral districts) in inner city London, where over 90% of residents are in the two most deprived quintiles of the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (2019) and the population is ethnically diverse. PARTICIPANTS: All women booked for antenatal care under Guys and St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust after 11 July 2018 (when the Lambeth Early Action Partnership (LEAP*) caseload midwifery team was implemented) until data collection 18 June 2020. This included 523 pregnancies in the LEAP area, of which 230 were allocated to caseload midwifery, and 8430 pregnancies from other areas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To explore if targeted caseload midwifery (known to reduce preterm birth) will improve important measurable outcomes (preterm birth, mode of birth and newborn outcomes). RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in preterm birth rate in women allocated to caseload midwifery, when compared with those who received traditional midwifery care (5.1% vs 11.2%; risk ratio: 0.41; p=0.02; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86; number needed to treat: 11.9). Caesarean section births were significantly reduced in women allocated to caseload midwifery care, when compared with traditional midwifery care (24.3% vs 38.0%; risk ratio: 0.64: p=0.01; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.90; number needed to treat: 7.4) including emergency caesarean deliveries (15.2% vs 22.5%; risk ratio: 0.59; p=0.03; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94; number needed to treat: 10) without increase in neonatal unit admission or stillbirth. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a model of caseload midwifery care implemented in an inner city deprived community improves outcome by significantly reducing preterm birth and birth by caesarean section when compared with traditional care. This data trend suggests that when applied to targeted groups (women in higher IMD quintile and women of diverse ethnicity) that the impact of intervention is greater.

Evaluation of a Community-Led Intervention in South London: How Much Standardization Is Possible?

It is widely recognized that public health interventions benefit from community engagement and leadership, yet there are challenges to evaluating complex, community-led interventions assuming hierarchies of evidence derived from laboratory experimentation and clinical trials. Particular challenges include, first, the inconsistency of the intervention across sites and, second, the absence of researcher control over the sampling frame and methodology. This report highlights these challenges as they played out in the evaluation of a community-organized health project in South London. The project aimed to benefit maternal mental health, health literacy, and social capital, and especially to engage local populations known to have reduced contact with statutory services. We evaluated the project using two studies with different designs, sampling frames, and methodologies. In one, the sampling frame and methodology were under community control, permitting a comparison of change in outcomes before and after participation in the project. In the other, the sampling frame and methodology were under researcher control, permitting a case-control design. The two evaluations led to different results, however: participants in the community-controlled study showed benefits, while participants in the researcher-controlled study did not. The principal conclusions are that while there are severe challenges to evaluating a community-led health intervention using a controlled design, the measurement of pre-/post-participation changes in well-defined health outcomes should typically be a minimum evaluation requirement, and confidence in attributing causation of any positive changes to participation can be increased by use of interventions in the project and in the engagement process itself that have a credible theoretical and empirical basis.

Protocol for a two-arm feasibility RCT to support postnatal maternal weight management and positive lifestyle behaviour in women from an ethnically diverse inner city population: the SWAN feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: A high BMI during and after pregnancy is linked to poor pregnancy outcomes and contributes to long-term maternal obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Evidence of feasible, effective postnatal interventions is lacking. This randomised controlled trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a future definitive trial to determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle information and access to Slimming World® (Alfreton, UK) groups for 12 weeks commencing from 8 to 16 weeks postnatally, in relation to supporting longer-term postnatal weight management in women in an ethnically diverse inner city population. METHODS/ANALYSIS: Women will be recruited from one maternity unit in London. To be eligible, women will be overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2) or obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) as identified at their first antenatal contact, or have a normal BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2) at booking but gain excessive gestational weight as assessed at 36 weeks gestation. Women will be aged 18 and over, can speak and read English, expecting a single baby, and will not have accessed weight management groups in this pregnancy. Women will be randomly allocated to standard care plus lifestyle information and access to Slimming World® (Alfreton, UK) groups or standard care only. A sample of 130 women is required.Feasibility trial objectives reflect those considered most important inform a decision about undertaking a definitive future trial. These include estimation of impact of lifestyle information and postnatal access to Slimming World® (Alfreton, UK) on maternal weight change between antenatal booking weight and weight at 12 months postbirth, recruitment rate and time to recruitment, retention rate, influence of lifestyle information and Slimming World® (Alfreton, UK) groups on weight management, diet, physical activity, breastfeeding, smoking cessation, alcohol intake, physical and mental health, infant health, and health-related quality of life 6 and 12 months postnatally. An embedded process evaluation will assess acceptability of study processes and procedures to women. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: London-Camberwell St Giles Research Ethics Committee, reference: 16/LO/1422. Outcomes will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: ISRCTN 39186148. Protocol version number: v7, 13 August 17. Trial sponsor: King's College London.

Effect of a behavioural intervention in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT study): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural interventions might improve clinical outcomes in pregnant women who are obese. We aimed to investigate whether a complex intervention addressing diet and physical activity could reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes and large-for-gestational-age infants. METHODS: The UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT) is a randomised controlled trial done at antenatal clinics in eight hospitals in multi-ethnic, inner-city locations in the UK. We recruited pregnant women (15-18 weeks plus 6 days of gestation) older than 16 years who were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)). We randomly assigned participants to either a behavioural intervention or standard antenatal care with an internet-based, computer-generated, randomisation procedure, minimising by age, ethnic origin, centre, BMI, and parity. The intervention was delivered once a week through eight health trainer-led sessions. Primary outcomes were gestational diabetes (diagnosed with an oral glucose tolerance test and by criteria from the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups) and large-for-gestational-age infants (≥90th customised birthweight centile). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISCRTN89971375. Recruitment and pregnancy outcomes are complete but childhood follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2009, and June 2, 2014, we assessed 8820 women for eligibility and recruited 1555, with a mean BMI of 36·3 kg/m(2) (SD 4·8). 772 were randomly assigned to standard antenatal care and 783 were allocated the behavioural intervention, of which 651 and 629 women, respectively, completed an oral glucose tolerance test. Gestational diabetes was reported in 172 (26%) women in the standard care group compared with 160 (25%) in the intervention group (risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·79-1·16; p=0·68). 61 (8%) of 751 babies in the standard care group were large for gestational age compared with 71 (9%) of 761 in the intervention group (1·15, 0·83-1·59; p=0·40). Thus, the primary outcomes did not differ between groups, despite improvements in some maternal secondary outcomes in the intervention group, including reduced dietary glycaemic load, gestational weight gain, and maternal sum-of-skinfold thicknesses, and increased physical activity. Adverse events included neonatal death (two in the standard care group and three in the intervention group) and fetal death in utero (ten in the standard care group and six in the intervention group). No maternal deaths were reported. Incidence of miscarriage (2% in the standard care group vs 2% in the intervention group), major obstetric haemorrhage (1% vs 3%), and small-for-gestational-age infants (≤5th customised birthweight centile; 6% vs 5%) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: A behavioural intervention addressing diet and physical activity in women with obesity during pregnancy is not adequate to prevent gestational diabetes, or to reduce the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Guys and St Thomas' Charity, Chief Scientist Office Scotland, Tommy's Charity.

Developing a complex intervention for diet and activity behaviour change in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT trial); assessment of behavioural change and process evaluation in a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Complex interventions in obese pregnant women should be theoretically based, feasible and shown to demonstrate anticipated behavioural change prior to inception of large randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim was to determine if a) a complex intervention in obese pregnant women leads to anticipated changes in diet and physical activity behaviours, and b) to refine the intervention protocol through process evaluation of intervention fidelity. METHODS: We undertook a pilot RCT of a complex intervention in obese pregnant women, comparing routine antenatal care with an intervention to reduce dietary glycaemic load and saturated fat intake, and increase physical activity. Subjects included 183 obese pregnant women (mean BMI 36.3 kg/m2). RESULTS: Compared to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had a significant reduction in dietary glycaemic load (33 points, 95% CI -47 to -20), (p < 0.001) and saturated fat intake (-1.6% energy, 95% CI -2.8 to -0. 3) at 28 weeks' gestation. Objectively measured physical activity did not change. Physical discomfort and sustained barriers to physical activity were common at 28 weeks' gestation. Process evaluation identified barriers to recruitment, group attendance and compliance, leading to modification of intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial of a complex intervention in obese pregnant women suggests greater potential for change in dietary intake than for change in physical activity, and through process evaluation illustrates the considerable advantage of performing an exploratory trial of a complex intervention in obese pregnant women before undertaking a large RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89971375.

Development and validation of a measure of health literacy in the UK: the newest vital sign.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is an important public health issue. Current measures have drawbacks in length and/or acceptability. The US-developed Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy instrument measures both reading comprehension and numeracy skills using a nutrition label, takes 3 minutes to administer, and has proven to be acceptable to research subjects. This study aimed to amend and validate it for the UK population. METHODS: We used a three-stage process; (1) a Delphi study with academic and clinical experts to amend the NVS label to reflect UK nutrition labeling (2) community-based cognitive testing to assess and improve ease of understanding and acceptability of the test (3) validation of the NVS-UK against an accepted standard test of health literacy, the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) (Pearson's r and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve) and participant educational level. A sample size calculation indicated that 250 participants would be required. Inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years and ability to converse in English. We excluded people working in the health field and those with impaired vision or inability to undertake the interview due to cognitive impairment or inability to converse in English. RESULTS: In the Delphi study, 28 experts reached consensus (3 cycles). Cognitive testing (80 participants) yielded an instrument that needed no further refinement. Validation testing (337 participants) showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.74). Validation against the TOFHLA demonstrated a Pearson's r of 0.49 and an area under the ROC curve of 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: The NVS-UK is a valid measure of HL. Its acceptability and ease of application makes it an ideal tool for use in the UK. It has potential uses in public health research including epidemiological surveys and randomized controlled trials, and in enabling practitioners to tailor care to patient need.

Benefits of sure start caseload midwifery.

The Sure Start programme was devised to address inequalities in access to healthcare services and improve outcomes for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. One such model is in Kennington and Nina Khazaezadeh explains how this service has offered new opportunities and enabled women to have more involvement in decisions regarding the care they receive.