Maternal and neonatal outcomes among spontaneous vaginal births occurring in or out of water following intrapartum water immersion: The POOL cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Warm water immersion during labour provides women with analgesia and comfort. This cohort study aimed to establish among women using intrapartum water immersion analgesia, without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, whether waterbirth is as safe for them and their babies as leaving the water before birth. DESIGN: Cohort study with non-inferiority design. SETTING: Twenty-six UK NHS maternity services. SAMPLE: A total of 73 229 women without antenatal or intrapartum risk factors, using intrapartum water immersion, between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2022. The analysis excluded 12 827 (17.5%) women who received obstetric or anaesthetic interventions before birth. METHODS: Non-inferiority analysis of retrospective and prospective data captured in NHS maternity and neonatal information systems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal primary outcome: obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) by parity; neonatal composite primary outcome: fetal or neonatal death, neonatal unit admission with respiratory support or administration of antibiotics within 48 hours of birth. RESULTS: Rates of the primary outcomes were no higher among waterbirths compared with births out of water: rates of OASI among nulliparous women (waterbirth: 730/15 176 [4.8%] versus births out of water: 641/12 210 [5.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.97, one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 1.08); rates of OASI among parous women (waterbirth: 269/24 451 [1.1%] versus births out of water 144/8565 [1.7%]; aOR 0.64, one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 0.78) and rates of the composite adverse outcome among babies (waterbirth 263/9868 [2.7%] versus births out of water 224/5078 [4.4%]; aOR 0.65, one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 0.79). CONCLUSION: Among women using water immersion during labour, remaining in the pool and giving birth in water was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse primary maternal or neonatal outcomes.

The acceptability of asking women to delay removal of a long-acting reversible contraceptive to take part in a preconception weight loss programme: a mixed methods study using qualitative and routine data (Plan-it).

BACKGROUND: Having a body mass index (BMI) which is classified as overweight (BMI ≥ 25) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) increases the risk of complications during pregnancy and labour. Weight-management interventions which target excess gestational weight gain during pregnancy have had limited success. Women who use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) are in contact with services as part of their preparation for conception, creating a potential opportunity to offer a preconception weight-loss intervention. The aims of this mixed methods study were to assess the acceptability and practicability of a weight-loss intervention which asked people to delay LARC removal in order to lose weight before conceiving. METHODS: Routine UK NHS data were analysed to identify pathways from LARC removal to pregnancy. Qualitative surveys and advisory group discussions with service providers and LARC users with experience of being overweight were conducted and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three hundred fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty-five UK women aged 16-48 years between 2009-2018 had at least one LARC-related event (e.g. insertion, removal) and 1.7% of those events were recorded as related to planning a pregnancy. BMI was included in 62% of women's records, with 54% of those BMI being classified as overweight or obese. Online surveys were completed by 100 healthcare practitioners and 243 LARC users. Stakeholders identified facilitators and barriers associated with the proposed intervention including sensitivities of discussing weight, service-user past experiences, practitioner skills, the setting and ethical implications of the proposed intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although women and service providers recognised potential benefits, a preconception weight-loss intervention asking people to delay LARC removal posed many barriers, due mainly to the acceptability of such an intervention to women and healthcare practitioners. Weight-loss interventions that target the general population, together with a focus on improving public knowledge of preconception health, may be more acceptable than interventions which solely focus on LARC users. Many of the barriers identified, including communication, understanding and beliefs about weight and risk, appointment systems and the limitations of routine datasets also have relevance for any preconception weight-loss intervention. Work to improve routine datasets and reducing communication barriers to discussing weight are priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14733020 registered 10.05.2019.

Acceptability and feasibility of a planned preconception weight loss intervention in women with long-acting reversible contraception: the Plan-it mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Women with overweight (a body mass index of ≥ 25 kg/m2) or obesity (a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2) are at greater risk of experiencing complications during pregnancy and labour than women with a healthy weight. Women who remove their long-acting reversible contraception (i.e. coils or implants) are one of the few groups of people who contact services as part of their preparation for conception, creating an opportunity to offer a weight loss intervention. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to understand if routine NHS data captured the pathway from long-acting reversible contraception removal to pregnancy and included body mass index; to identify the suitable components of a preconception weight loss intervention; and to engage with key stakeholders to determine the acceptability and feasibility of asking women with overweight/obesity to delay the removal of their long-acting reversible contraception in order to take part in a preconception weight loss intervention. DESIGN: This was a preparatory mixed-methods study, assessing the acceptability and feasibility of a potential intervention, using routine NHS data and purposefully collected qualitative data. PARTICIPANTS: The NHS routine data included all women with a long-acting reversible contraception code. There were three groups of participants in the surveys and interviews: health-care practitioners who remove long-acting reversible contraception; weight management consultants; and women of reproductive age with experience of overweight/obesity and of using long-acting reversible contraception. SETTING: UK-based health-care practitioners recruited at professional meetings; and weight management consultants and contraceptive users recruited via social media. DATA SOURCES: Anonymised routine data from UK sexual health clinics and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including the Pregnancy Register; and online surveys and qualitative interviews with stakeholders. RESULTS: The records of 2,632,871 women aged 16-48 years showed that 318,040 had at least one long-acting reversible contraception event, with 62% of records including a body mass index. Given the identified limitations of the routine NHS data sets, it would not be feasible to reliably identify women with overweight/obesity who request a long-acting reversible contraception removal with an intention to become pregnant. Online surveys were completed by 100 health-care practitioners, four weight management consultants and 243 contraceptive users. Ten health-care practitioners and 20 long-acting reversible contraception users completed qualitative interviews. A realist-informed approach generated a hypothesised programme theory. The combination of weight discussions and the delay of long-acting reversible contraception removal was unacceptable as an intervention to contraceptive users for ethical and practical reasons. However, a preconception health intervention incorporating weight loss could be acceptable, and one potential programme is outlined. LIMITATIONS: There was very limited engagement with weight management consultants, and the sample of participating stakeholders may not be representative. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention that asks women to delay long-acting reversible contraception removal to participate in a preconception weight loss intervention would be neither feasible nor acceptable. A preconception health programme, including weight management, would be welcomed but requires risk communication training of health-care practitioners. FUTURE WORK: Work to improve routine data sets, increase awareness of the importance of preconception health and overcome health-care practitioner barriers to discussing weight as part of preconception care is a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14733020. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 1.

If a woman has overweight or obesity when she is pregnant, then there is a greater risk of health problems for her and her baby. About half of women of childbearing age have overweight or obesity, so we need to find ways of supporting women to lose weight before they become pregnant (described here as 'preconception'). This can be difficult because women do not usually talk to a health-care practitioner (e.g. general practitioners, sexual health doctors, nurses) about becoming pregnant, but one group of women who do are those who need to have a long-acting reversible contraceptive (e.g. a coil or an implant) removed. This study was designed as preparatory work for a potential future study of a preconception weight loss intervention. We wanted to answer three questions: (1) would women with experience of overweight and of using a long-acting reversible contraceptive think that it would be acceptable to ask women to delay having their long-acting reversible contraceptive removed to take part in a weight loss intervention before pregnancy; (2) what did health-care practitioners think about that idea, and would they be happy to ask women to take part; and (3) can NHS information (routine data) tell us how many women might potentially take part in such an intervention? We looked at NHS routine data and the research on preconception weight loss interventions. A total of 100 health-care practitioners and 243 users of long-acting reversible contraceptives completed surveys, and 10 health-care practitioners and 20 users of long-acting reversible contraceptives took part in interviews. We found that routine data could not be used to identify people reliably. Designing a weight loss intervention that needed women to delay the removal of a long-acting reversible contraceptive was not acceptable to women. A population-based preconception weight loss intervention with a positive focus was acceptable, but, for such a programme to be delivered by the NHS, health-care practitioners need more knowledge, skills and confidence in talking about weight with patients.

Establishing the safety of waterbirth for mothers and babies: a cohort study with nested qualitative component: the protocol for the POOL study.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 60 000 (9/100) infants are born into water annually in the UK and this is likely to increase. Case reports identified infants with water inhalation or sepsis following birth in water and there is a concern that women giving birth in water may sustain more complex perineal trauma. There have not been studies large enough to show whether waterbirth increases these poor outcomes. The POOL Study (ISRCTN13315580) plans to answer the question about the safety of waterbirths among women who are classified appropriate for midwifery-led intrapartum care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cohort study with a nested qualitative component. Objectives will be answered using retrospective and prospective data captured in electronic National Health Service (NHS) maternity and neonatal systems. The qualitative component aims to explore factors influencing pool use and waterbirth; data will be gathered via discussion groups, interviews and case studies of maternity units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee (18/WA/0291) the transfer of identifiable data has been approved by Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group (18CAG0153).Study findings and innovative methodology will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and events. Results will be of interest to the general public, clinical and policy stakeholders in the UK and will be disseminated accordingly.