Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia in low-income and middle-income countries (CRADLE-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality. Evidence regarding interventions in a low-income or middle-income setting is scarce. We aimed to evaluate whether planned delivery between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks' gestation can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity without increasing perinatal complications in India and Zambia. METHODS: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management in women with pre-eclampsia from 34+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks' gestation. Participants were recruited from nine hospitals and referral facilities in India and Zambia and randomly assigned to planned delivery or expectant management in a 1:1 ratio by a secure web-based randomisation facility hosted by MedSciNet. Randomisation was stratified by centre and minimised by parity, single-fetus pregnancy or multi-fetal pregnancy, and gestational age. The primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality or morbidity with a superiority hypothesis. The primary perinatal outcome was a composite of one or more of: stillbirth, neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission of more than 48 h with a non-inferiority hypothesis (margin of 10% difference). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, 10672137. The trial is closed to recruitment and all follow-up has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2019, and March 31, 2022, 565 women were enrolled. 284 women (282 women and 301 babies analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 281 women (280 women and 300 babies analysed) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the primary maternal outcome was not significantly different in the planned delivery group (154 [55%]) compared with the expectant management group (168 [60%]; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·79 to 1·05). The incidence of the primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was non-inferior in the planned delivery group (58 [19%]) compared with the expectant management group (67 [22%]; adjusted risk difference -3·39%, 90% CI -8·67 to 1·90; non-inferiority p<0·0001). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There was a significant reduction in severe maternal hypertension (adjusted RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·99) and stillbirth (0·25, 0·07 to 0·87) associated with planned delivery. There were 12 serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 21 in the expectant management group. INTERPRETATION: Clinicians can safely offer planned delivery to women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, in a low-income or middle-income country. Planned delivery reduces stillbirth, with no increase in neonatal unit admissions or neonatal morbidity and reduces the risk of severe maternal hypertension. Planned delivery from 34 weeks' gestation should therefore be considered as an intervention to reduce pre-eclampsia associated mortality and morbidity in these settings. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Indian Department of Biotechnology.

Diagnosis and management of selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancies: A cross-sectional international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To identify current practices in the management of selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) in monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) twin pregnancies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Clinicians involved in the management of MCDA twin pregnancies with sFGR. METHODS: A structured, self-administered survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical practices and attitudes to diagnostic criteria and management strategies. RESULTS: Overall, 62.8% (113/180) of clinicians completed the survey; of which, 66.4% (75/113) of the respondents reported that they would use an estimated fetal weight (EFW) of <10th centile for the smaller twin and an inter-twin EFW discordance of >25% for the diagnosis of sFGR. For early-onset type I sFGR, 79.8% (75/94) of respondents expressed that expectant management would be their routine practice. On the other hand, for early-onset type II and type III sFGR, 19.3% (17/88) and 35.7% (30/84) of respondents would manage these pregnancies expectantly, whereas 71.6% (63/88) and 57.1% (48/84) would refer these pregnancies to a fetal intervention centre or would offer fetal intervention for type II and type III cases, respectively. Moreover, 39.0% (16/41) of the respondents would consider fetoscopic laser surgery (FLS) for early-onset type I sFGR, whereas 41.5% (17/41) would offer either FLS or selective feticide, and 12.2% (5/41) would exclusively offer selective feticide. For early-onset type II and type III sFGR cases, 25.9% (21/81) and 31.4% (22/70) would exclusively offer FLS, respectively, whereas 33.3% (27/81) and 32.9% (23/70) would exclusively offer selective feticide. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in clinician practices and attitudes towards the management of early-onset sFGR in MCDA twin pregnancies, especially for type II and type III cases, highlighting the need for high-level evidence to guide management.

Women's experiences of attempted suicide in the perinatal period (ASPEN-study) - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of maternal death during pregnancy and the year after birth (the perinatal period). While maternal suicide is a relatively rare event with a prevalence of 3.84 per 100,000 live births in the UK [1], the impact of maternal suicide is profound and long-lasting. Many more women will attempt suicide during the perinatal period, with a worldwide estimated prevalence of 680 per 100,000 in pregnancy and 210 per 100,000 in the year after birth [2]. Qualitative research into perinatal suicide attempts is crucial to understand the experiences, motives and the circumstances surrounding these events, but this has largely been unexplored. AIM: Our study aimed to explore the experiences of women and birthing people who had a perinatal suicide attempt and to understand the context and contributing factors surrounding their perinatal suicide attempt. METHODS: Through iterative feedback from a group of women with lived experience of perinatal mental illness and relevant stakeholders, a qualitative study design was developed. We recruited women and birthing people (N = 11) in the UK who self-reported as having undertaken a suicide attempt. Interviews were conducted virtually, recorded and transcribed. Using NVivo software, a critical realist approach to Thematic Analysis was followed, and themes were developed. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified that contributed to the perinatal suicide attempt. The first theme 'Trauma and Adversities' captures the traumatic events and life adversities with which participants started their pregnancy journeys. The second theme, 'Disillusionment with Motherhood' brings together a range of sub-themes highlighting various challenges related to pregnancy, birth and motherhood resulting in a decline in women's mental health. The third theme, 'Entrapment and Despair', presents a range of factors that leads to a significant deterioration of women's mental health, marked by feelings of failure, hopelessness and losing control. CONCLUSIONS: Feelings of entrapment and despair in women who are struggling with motherhood, alongside a background of traumatic events and life adversities may indicate warning signs of a perinatal suicide. Meaningful enquiry around these factors could lead to timely detection, thus improving care and potentially prevent future maternal suicides.

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

"I have to listen to them or they might harm me" and other narratives of why women endure obstetric violence in Bihar, India.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that obstetric violence has been prevalent globally and is finally getting some attention through research. This human rights violation takes several forms and is best understood through the narratives of embodied experiences of disrespect and abuse from women and other people who give birth, which is of utmost importance to make efforts in implementing respectful maternity care for a positive birthing experience. This study focused on the drivers of obstetric violence during labor and birth in Bihar, India. METHODS: Participatory qualitative visual arts-based method of data collection-body mapping-assisted interviews (adapted as birth mapping)-was conducted to understand women's perception of why they are denied respectful maternity care and what makes them vulnerable to obstetric violence during labor and childbirth. This study is embedded in feminist and critical theories that ensure women's narratives are at the center, which was further ensured by the feminist relational discourse analysis. Eight women participated from urban slums and rural villages in Bihar, for 2-4 interactions each, within a week. The data included transcripts, audio files, body maps, birthing stories, and body key, which were analyzed with the help of NVivo 12. FINDINGS: Women's narratives suggested drivers that determine how they will be treated during labor and birth, or any form of sexual, reproductive, and maternal healthcare seeking presented through the four themes: (1) "I am admitted under your care, so, I will have to do what you say"-Influence of power on care during childbirth; (2) "I was blindfolded … because there were men"-Influence of gender on care during childbirth; (3) "The more money we give the more convenience we get"-Influence of structure on care during childbirth; and (4) "How could I ask him, how it will come out?"-Influence of culture on care during childbirth. How women will be treated in the society and in the obstetric environment is determined by their identity at the intersections of age, class, caste, marital status, religion, education, and many other sociodemographic factors. The issues related to each of these are intertwined and cross-cutting, which made it difficult to draw clear categorizations because the four themes influenced and overlapped with each other. Son preference, for example, is a gender-based issue that is part of certain cultures in a patriarchal structure as a result of power-based imbalance, which makes the women vulnerable to disrespect and abuse when their baby is assigned female at birth. DISCUSSION: Sensitive unique feminist methods are important to explore and understand women's embodied experiences of trauma and are essential to understand their perspectives of what drives obstetric violence during childbirth. Sensitive methods of research are crucial for the health systems to learn from and embed women's wants, to address this structural challenge with urgency, and to ensure a positive experience of care.

Antenatal detection of large-for-gestational-age fetuses following implementation of the Growth Assessment Protocol: secondary analysis of a randomised control trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) affects the antenatal detection of large for gestational age (LGA) or maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst LGA babies. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a pragmatic open randomised cluster control trial comparing the GAP with standard care. SETTING: Eleven UK maternity units. POPULATION: Pregnant women and their LGA babies born at ≥36+0  weeks of gestation. METHODS: Clusters were randomly allocated to GAP implementation or standard care. Data were collected from electronic patient records. Trial arms were compared using summary statistics, with unadjusted and adjusted (two-stage cluster summary approach) differences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of detection of LGA (estimated fetal weight on ultrasound scan above the 90th centile after 34+0  weeks of gestation, defined by either population or customised growth charts), maternal and perinatal outcomes (e.g. mode of birth, postpartum haemorrhage, severe perineal tears, birthweight and gestational age, neonatal unit admission, perinatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity and mortality). RESULTS: A total of 506 LGA babies were exposed to GAP and 618 babies received standard care. There were no significant differences in the rate of LGA detection (GAP 38.0% vs standard care 48.0%; adjusted effect size -4.9%; 95% CI -20.5, 10.7; p = 0.54), nor in any of the maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GAP did not change the rate of antenatal ultrasound detection of LGA when compared with standard care.

Targeted health and social care interventions for women and infants who are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities in high-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Disadvantaged populations (such as women from minority ethnic groups and those with social complexity) are at an increased risk of poor outcomes and experiences. Inequalities in health outcomes include preterm birth, maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor-quality care. The impact of interventions is unclear for this population, in high-income countries (HIC). The review aimed to identify and evaluate the current evidence related to targeted health and social care service interventions in HICs which can improve health inequalities experienced by childbearing women and infants at disproportionate risk of poor outcomes and experiences. METHODS: Twelve databases searched for studies across all HICs, from any methodological design. The search concluded on 8/11/22. The inclusion criteria included interventions that targeted disadvantaged populations which provided a component of clinical care that differed from standard maternity care. RESULTS: Forty six index studies were included. Countries included Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, UK and USA. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and results showed three intervention types: midwifery models of care, interdisciplinary care, and community-centred services. These intervention types have been delivered singularly but also in combination of each other demonstrating overlapping features. Overall, results show interventions had positive associations with primary (maternal, perinatal, and infant mortality) and secondary outcomes (experiences and satisfaction, antenatal care coverage, access to care, quality of care, mode of delivery, analgesia use in labour, preterm birth, low birth weight, breastfeeding, family planning, immunisations) however significance and impact vary. Midwifery models of care took an interpersonal and holistic approach as they focused on continuity of carer, home visiting, culturally and linguistically appropriate care and accessibility. Interdisciplinary care took a structural approach, to coordinate care for women requiring multi-agency health and social services. Community-centred services took a place-based approach with interventions that suited the need of its community and their norms. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions exist in HICs, but these vary according to the context and infrastructure of standard maternity care. Multi-interventional approaches could enhance a targeted approach for at risk populations, in particular combining midwifery models of care with community-centred approaches, to enhance accessibility, earlier engagement, and increased attendance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020218357.

Case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations globally have contributed to increasing numbers of people living with frailty, which has significant implications for use of health and care services and costs. The British Geriatrics Society defines frailty as "a distinctive health state related to the ageing process in which multiple body systems gradually lose their inbuilt reserves". This leads to an increased susceptibility to adverse outcomes, such as reduced physical function, poorer quality of life, hospital admissions, and mortality. Case management interventions delivered in community settings are led by a health or social care professional, supported by a multidisciplinary team, and focus on the planning, provision, and co-ordination of care to meet the needs of the individual. Case management is one model of integrated care that has gained traction with policymakers to improve outcomes for populations at high risk of decline in health and well-being. These populations include older people living with frailty, who commonly have complex healthcare and social care needs but can experience poorly co-ordinated care due to fragmented care systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of case management for integrated care of older people living with frailty compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Systems Evidence, and PDQ Evidence and databases from inception to 23 September 2022. We also searched clinical registries and relevant grey literature databases, checked references of included trials and relevant systematic reviews, conducted citation searching of included trials, and contacted topic experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared case management with standard care in community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older living with frailty. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (11,860 participants), all of which took place in high-income countries. Case management interventions in the included trials varied in terms of organisation, delivery, setting, and care providers involved. Most trials included a variety of healthcare and social care professionals, including nurse practitioners, allied healthcare professionals, social workers, geriatricians, physicians, psychologists, and clinical pharmacists. In nine trials, the case management intervention was delivered by nurses only. Follow-up ranged from three to 36 months. We judged most trials at unclear risk of selection and performance bias; this consideration, together with indirectness, justified downgrading the certainty of the evidence to low or moderate. Case management compared to standard care may result in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Mortality at 12 months' follow-up (7.0% in the intervention group versus 7.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15; I2 = 11%; 14 trials, 9924 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in place of residence to a nursing home at 12 months' follow-up (9.9% in the intervention group versus 13.4% in the control group; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 1108 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Quality of life at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; mean differences (MDs) ranged from -6.32 points (95% CI -11.04 to -1.59) to 6.1 points (95% CI -3.92 to 16.12) when reported; 11 trials, 9284 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Serious adverse effects at 12 to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 2 trials, 592 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in physical function at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; MDs ranged from -0.12 points (95% CI -0.93 to 0.68) to 3.4 points (95% CI -2.35 to 9.15) when reported; 16 trials, 10,652 participants; low-certainty evidence) Case management compared to standard care probably results in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Healthcare utilisation in terms of hospital admission at 12 months' follow-up (32.7% in the intervention group versus 36.0% in the control group; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; I2 = 43%; 6 trials, 2424 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) • Change in costs at six to 36 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 14 trials, 8486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which usually included healthcare service costs, intervention costs, and other costs such as informal care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found uncertain evidence regarding whether case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings, compared to standard care, improved patient and service outcomes or reduced costs. There is a need for further research to develop a clear taxonomy of intervention components, to determine the active ingredients that work in case management interventions, and identify how such interventions benefit some people and not others.

How are hospitals in England caring for women at risk of preterm birth in 2021? The influence of national guidance on preterm birth care in England: a national questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: National guidance (Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2 (SBLCBv2) Element 5) was published in 2019, with the aim to standardise preterm care in England. We plan to identify how many preterm birth surveillance clinics there are in England, and to define current national management in caring for women who are both asymptomatic and high-risk of preterm birth, and who arrive symptomatically in threatened preterm labour, to assist preterm management both nationally and internationally. METHODS: An online survey comprising of 27 questions was sent to all maternity units in England between February 2021 to July 2021. RESULTS: Data was obtained from 96 units. Quantitative analysis and free text analysis was then undertaken. We identified 78 preterm birth surveillance clinics in England, an increase from 30 preterm clinics in 2017. This is a staggering 160% increase in 4 years. SBLCBv2 has had a considerable impact in increasing preterm birth surveillance clinic services, with the majority (61%) of sites reporting that the NHS England publication influenced their unit in setting up their clinic. Variations exist at every step of the preterm pathway, such as deciding which risk factors warrant referral, distinguishing within particular risk factors, and offering screening tests and treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: While variations in care still do persist, hospitals have done well to increase preterm surveillance clinics, under the difficult circumstances of the COVID pandemic and many without specific additional funding.

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.

Breech specialist midwives and clinics in the OptiBreech Trial feasibility study: An implementation process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Attendance of skilled and experienced professionals at breech births has been associated with a reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes. We aimed to determine whether United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) sites could reliably provide attendants with OptiBreech training and/or advanced proficiency (intervention feasibility) and consistent care (fidelity) that meets women's needs (acceptability), with low neonatal admission rates (safety) and recruitment adequate to support a clinical trial (trial feasibility). METHODS: Mixed methods implementation evaluation was used. Settings were 13 services in England and Wales. Participants were 82 women requesting support for a vaginal breech birth (VBB) at term. Outcomes were descriptively analyzed. Twenty-one women were interviewed, and transcripts were analyzed using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Iterative analysis informed subsequent interviews and the ongoing process of implementation across sites. RESULTS: Although we initially suggested multidisciplinary teams, actively recruiting Trusts yielded services where VBB care was provided through a dedicated clinic, organized and delivered primarily by a lead midwife who functioned as a specialist. This model achieved 87.5% fidelity with the intervention's goal of ensuring the attendance of OptiBreech-trained professionals. Neonatal outcomes remained stable, with an admission rate of 5.5%. Women reported care from specialist midwives as highly acceptable, but the model is vulnerable without a strategic effort to develop additional proficient team members. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated clinics coordinated by specialist midwives appear to be an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy to test the safety and effectiveness of proficient team care for VBB in a clinical trial. Back-up arrangements should be maintained while additional members of the team develop proficiency.

Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence.

BACKGROUND: Open Disclosure (OD) is open and timely communication about harmful events arising from health care with those affected. It is an entitlement of service-users and an aspect of their recovery, as well as an important dimension of service safety improvement. Recently, OD in maternity care in the English National Health Service has become a pressing public issue, with policymakers promoting multiple interventions to manage the financial and reputational costs of communication failures. There is limited research to understand how OD works and its effects in different contexts. METHODS: Realist literature screening, data extraction, and retroductive theorisation involving two advisory stakeholder groups. Data relevant to families, clinicians, and services were mapped to theorise the relationships between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. From these maps, key aspects for successful OD were identified. RESULTS: After realist quality appraisal, 38 documents were included in the synthesis (22 academic, 2 training guidance, and 14 policy report). 135 explanatory accounts were identified from the included documents (with n = 41 relevant to families; n = 37 relevant to staff; and n = 37 relevant to services). These were theorised as five key mechanism sets: (a) meaningful acknowledgement of harm, (b) opportunity for family involvement in reviews and investigations, (c) possibilities for families and staff to make sense of what happened, (d) specialist skills and psychological safety of clinicians, and (e) families and staff knowing that improvements are happening. Three key contextual factors were identified: (a) the configuration of the incident (how and when identified and classified as more or less severe); (b) national or state drivers, such as polices, regulations, and schemes, designed to promote OD; and (c) the organisational context within which these these drivers are recieived and negotiated. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first review to theorise how OD works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why. We identify and examine from the secondary data the five key mechanisms for successful OD and the three contextual factors that influence this. The next study stage will use interview and ethnographic data to test, deepen, or overturn our five hypothesised programme theories to explain what is required to strengthen OD in maternity services.

Scale-up of a novel vital signs alert device to improve maternity care in Sierra Leone: a mixed methods evaluation of adoption.

BACKGROUND: The CRADLE (Community blood pressure monitoring in Rural Africa: Detection of underLying pre-Eclampsia) Vital Signs Alert device-designed specifically to improve maternity care in low resource settings-had varying impact when trialled in different countries. To better understand the contextual factors that may contribute to this variation, this study retrospectively evaluated the adoption of CRADLE, during scale-up in Sierra Leone. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study. A quantitative indicator of adoption (the proportion of facilities trained per district) was calculated from existing training records, then focus groups were held with 'CRADLE Champions' in each district (n = 32), to explore adoption qualitatively. Template Analysis was used to deductively interpret qualitative data, guided by the NASSS (non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability) Framework. FINDINGS: Substantial but non-significant variation was found in the proportion of facilities trained in each district (range 59-90%) [X2 (7, N = 8) = 10.419, p = 0.166]. Qualitative data identified complexity in two NASSS domains that may have contributed to this variation: 'the technology' (for example, charging issues, difficulty interpreting device output and concerns about ongoing procurement) and 'the organisation' (for example, logistical barriers to implementing training, infighting and high staff turnover). Key strategies mentioned to mitigate against these issues included: transparent communication at all levels; encouraging localised adaptations during implementation (including the involvement of community leaders); and selecting Champions with strong soft skills (particularly conflict resolution and problem solving). CONCLUSIONS: Complexity related to the technology and the organisational context were found to influence the adoption of CRADLE in Sierra Leone, with substantial inter-district variation. These findings emphasise the importance of gaining an in-depth understanding of the specific system and context in which a new healthcare technology is being implemented. This study has implications for the ongoing scale-up of CRADLE, and for those implementing or evaluating other health technologies in similar contexts.

Many women die during pregnancy and childbirth from causes that could be prevented, and the vast majority of these deaths occur in low-resource settings. The 'CRADLE Vital Signs Alert' is a medical device that helps identify problems during pregnancy­designed specifically for healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. However, for unknown reasons, the device appears to have varying impact according to the country or setting in which it is used. This study aimed to explore in depth whether, and why, healthcare professionals in Sierra Leone adopted the device and engaged in training (or not). Between March 2020 and January 2021, the CRADLE device and training package was disseminated across 8 districts in Sierra Leone. This relied on a few healthcare workers (nominated 'CRADLE Champions') to voluntarily distribute the devices and training in their local areas. Group discussions were held with CRADLE Champions in each district after the rollout to gather their feedback. In addition, the proportion of facilities trained in each district was recorded. The study found differences in how well the device and training was adopted in each district. Common challenges reported across districts related to technological difficulties (such as issues charging the devices) and organisational barriers (such as high levels of staff turnover at facilities). These findings will help to inform future rollout of the CRADLE device and training in Sierra Leone and highlight factors that may need to be considered by those implementing other health technologies in similar settings.

Evaluation of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small for gestational age: The DESiGN cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal detection and management of small for gestational age (SGA) is a strategy to reduce stillbirth. Large observational studies provide conflicting results on the effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) in relation to detection of SGA and reduction of stillbirth; to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported randomised control trials. Our aim was to determine if GAP improves antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a pragmatic, superiority, 2-arm, parallel group, open, cluster randomised control trial. Maternity units in England were eligible to participate in the study, except if they had already implemented GAP. All women who gave birth in participating clusters (maternity units) during the year prior to randomisation and during the trial (November 2016 to February 2019) were included. Multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or births before 24+1 weeks were excluded. Clusters were randomised to immediate implementation of GAP, an antenatal care package aimed at improving detection of SGA as a means to reduce the rate of stillbirth, or to standard care. Randomisation by random permutation was stratified by time of study inclusion and cluster size. Data were obtained from hospital electronic records for 12 months prerandomisation, the washout period (interval between randomisation and data collection of outcomes), and the outcome period (last 6 months of the study). The primary outcome was ultrasound detection of SGA (estimated fetal weight <10th centile using customised centiles (intervention) or Hadlock centiles (standard care)) confirmed at birth (birthweight <10th centile by both customised and population centiles). Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction of labour, gestational age at delivery, mode of birth, neonatal morbidity, and stillbirth/perinatal mortality. A 2-stage cluster-summary statistical approach calculated the absolute difference (intervention minus standard care arm) adjusted using the prerandomisation estimate, maternal age, ethnicity, parity, and randomisation strata. Intervention arm clusters that made no attempt to implement GAP were excluded in modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis; full ITT was also reported. Process evaluation assessed implementation fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, and feasibility. Seven clusters were randomised to GAP and 6 to standard care. Following exclusions, there were 11,096 births exposed to the intervention (5 clusters) and 13,810 exposed to standard care (6 clusters) during the outcome period (mITT analysis). Age, height, and weight were broadly similar between arms, but there were fewer women: of white ethnicity (56.2% versus 62.7%), and in the least deprived quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (7.5% versus 16.5%) in the intervention arm during the outcome period. Antenatal detection of SGA was 25.9% in the intervention and 27.7% in the standard care arm (adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4% to 10.7%; p = 0.62). Findings were consistent in full ITT analysis. Fidelity and dose of GAP implementation were variable, while a high proportion (88.7%) of women were reached. Use of routinely collected data is both a strength (cost-efficient) and a limitation (occurrence of missing data); the modest number of clusters limits our ability to study small effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed no effect of GAP on antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. Given variable implementation observed, future studies should incorporate standardised implementation outcomes such as those reported here to determine generalisability of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN67698474.

Breaking the silence about obstetric violence: Body mapping women's narratives of respect, disrespect and abuse during childbirth in Bihar, India.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on obstetric violence is reported globally. In India, research shows that almost every woman goes through some level of disrespect and abuse during childbirth, more so in states such as Bihar where over 70% of women give birth in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: 1) To understand how women experience and attach meaning to respect, disrespect and abuse during childbirth; and 2) document women's expectations of respectful care. METHODS: 'Body mapping', an arts-based participatory method, was applied. The analysis is based on in-depth interviews with eight women who participated in the body mapping exercise at their homes in urban slums and rural villages. Analysis was guided by feminist relational discourse analysis. FINDINGS: Women reported their experiences of birthing at home, public facilities, and private hospitals in simple terms of what they felt 'good' and 'bad'. Good experiences included being spoken to nicely, respecting privacy, companion of choice, a bed to rest, timely care, lesser interventions, obtaining consent for vaginal examination and cesarean section, and better communication. Bad experiences included unconsented interventions including multiple vaginal examinations by different care providers, unanesthetized episiotomy, repairs and uterine exploration, verbal, physical, sexual abuse, extortion, detention and lack of privacy. DISCUSSION: The body maps capturing birth experiences, created through a participatory method, accurately portray women's respectful and disrespectful births and are useful to understand women's experience of a sensitive issue in a patriarchal culture. An in-depth understanding of women's choices, experiences and expectations can inform changes practices in and policies and help to develop a culture of sharing birth experiences.

The effectiveness of decision aids for pregnancy related decision-making in women with pre-pregnancy morbidity; systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Women with pre-existing morbidity arising from medical conditions or previous caesarean section are at higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to women without such morbidity. Women often face complex pregnancy-related decision-making that may be characterized by conflicting maternal and perinatal priorities. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials of decision aids to evaluate whether they are effective at reducing decisional conflict scores and to evaluate what type of decision aids are most effective for women with pre-existing morbidity in pregnancy. METHODS: We searched Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO) from the earliest entries until September 2021. We selected randomised controlled trials comparing patient decision aids for women with pre-existing morbidity with usual clinical practice or a control intervention. Study characteristics and Jadad risk of bias was recorded. Meta-analysis by pre-existing morbidity type was performed using Stata 17 and the data was presented with a Forest Plot. Random effects models were used to calculate summary estimates if there was substantial clinical or statistical heterogeneity and post mean DCS scores were described in a sensitivity analysis and presented as a line graph, to improve clinical interpretation of results.. A narrative synthesis of the selected studies evaluated what type of decision aid works and for in what circumstances. RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials, which reported data from 4028 women, were included. Patient decision aids were evaluated in women with pre-existing morbidity who were undertaking pregnancy-related decision-making. Patient decision aids reduced decisional conflict scale scores by an additional - 3.7, 95% Confidence Interval - 5.9% to - 1.6%) compared to the control group. Women with pre-existing medical conditions were more conflicted at baseline and had greater reductions in decisional conflict scale score (mean difference vs. control group: - 6.6%; 95% CI - 9.8% to - 3.3%), in contrast to those with previous caesarean section (mean difference - 2.4%; 95% CI - 4.8% to - 0.1%). There was limited evidence on the effect of decision aids on health outcomes. Decision aids reduced unwanted variation in decision-making support across maternity settings. CONCLUSION: Patient decision aids are effective tools to support personalised care planning and informed decision-making in women with pre-existing morbidity. Women with pre-existing medical morbidity were more conflicted at baseline and were more likely to benefit from decision aids. Adoption of aids in this population may lead to improve adherence and health outcomes, warranting further research.

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.

The Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool, a device for reducing the clinical impact of placental dysfunction and preterm birth: protocol for a mixed-methods early implementation evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in stillbirth and preterm birth persist even after correction for ethnicity and social deprivation, demonstrating that there is wide geographical variation in the quality of care. To address this inequity, Tommy's National Centre for Maternity Improvement developed the Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool, which aims to support the provision of "the right care at the right time", personalising risk assessment and care according to best evidence. This web-based clinical decision tool assesses the risk of preterm birth and placental dysfunction more accurately than current methods, and recommends best evidenced-based care pathways in a format accessible to both women and healthcare professionals. It also provides links to reliable sources of pregnancy information for women. The aim of this study is to evaluate implementation of Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool in four early-adopter UK maternity services, to inform wider scale-up. METHODS: The Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool has been developed involving maternity service users and healthcare professionals in partnership. This mixed-methods study will evaluate: maternity service user and provider acceptability and experience; barriers and facilitators to implementation; reach (whether particular groups are excluded and why), fidelity (degree to which the intervention is delivered as intended), and unintended consequences. Data will be gathered over 25 months through interviews, focus groups, questionnaires and through the Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool itself. The NASSS framework (Non-adoption or Abandonment of technology by individuals and difficulties achieving Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability) will inform data analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the intervention, Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool, according to TiDIER guidelines, and the protocol for the early adopter implementation evaluation study. Findings will inform future scale up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry no. 13498237 , on 31st January 2022.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Control in Pregnant Individuals With Chronic or Gestational Hypertension: The BUMP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. The role of blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy in improving clinical outcomes for the pregnant individual and infant is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of blood pressure self-monitoring, compared with usual care alone, on blood pressure control and other related maternal and infant outcomes, in individuals with pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that recruited between November 2018 and September 2019 in 15 hospital maternity units in England. Individuals with chronic hypertension (enrolled up to 37 weeks' gestation) or with gestational hypertension (enrolled between 20 and 37 weeks' gestation). Final follow-up was in May 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to either blood pressure self-monitoring using a validated monitor and a secure telemonitoring system in addition to usual care (n = 430) or to usual care alone (n = 420). Usual care comprised blood pressure measured by health care professionals at regular antenatal clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary maternal outcome was the difference in mean systolic blood pressure recorded by health care professionals between randomization and birth. Results: Among 454 participants with chronic hypertension (mean age, 36 years; mean gestation at entry, 20 weeks) and 396 with gestational hypertension (mean age, 34 years; mean gestation at entry, 33 weeks) who were randomized, primary outcome data were available from 444 (97.8%) and 377 (95.2%), respectively. In the chronic hypertension cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure for the self-monitoring groups vs the usual care group (133.8 mm Hg vs 133.6 mm Hg, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.73 to 1.79]). In the gestational hypertension cohort, there was also no significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure (137.6 mm Hg compared with 137.2 mm Hg; adjusted mean difference, -0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.29 to 2.24]). There were 8 serious adverse events in the self-monitoring group (4 in each cohort) and 3 in the usual care group (2 in the chronic hypertension cohort and 1 in the gestational hypertension cohort). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals with chronic or gestational hypertension, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly improved clinic-based blood pressure control. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure (BP) is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. Self-monitoring of BP in the general population has been shown to improve the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, little is known about its use in pregnancy. Objective: To determine whether self-monitoring of BP in higher-risk pregnancies leads to earlier detection of pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019. Final follow-up was completed in April 2020. Interventions: Participating individuals were randomized to either BP self-monitoring with telemonitoring (n = 1223) plus usual care or usual antenatal care alone (n = 1218) without access to telemonitored BP. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first recorded hypertension measured by a health care professional. Results: Among 2441 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 33 [5.6] years; mean gestation, 20 [1.6] weeks), 2346 (96%) completed the trial. The time from randomization to clinic recording of hypertension was not significantly different between individuals in the self-monitoring group (mean [SD], 104.3 [32.6] days) vs in the usual care group (mean [SD], 106.2 [32.0] days) (mean difference, -1.6 days [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.9]; P = .64). Eighteen serious adverse events were reported during the trial with none judged as related to the intervention (12 [1%] in the self-monitoring group vs 6 [0.5%] in the usual care group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly earlier clinic-based detection of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.