My Baby's Movements: An assessment of the effectiveness of the My Baby's Movements phone program in reducing late-gestation stillbirth rates.

BACKGROUND: Delayed reporting of decreased fetal movements (DFM) could represent a missed opportunity to prevent stillbirth. Mobile phone applications (apps) have the potential to improve maternal awareness and reporting of DFM and contribute to stillbirth prevention. AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness of the My Baby's Movements (MBM) app on late-gestation stillbirth rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MBM trial evaluated a multifaceted fetal movements awareness package across 26 maternity services in Australia and New Zealand between 2016 and 2019. In this secondary analysis, generalised linear mixed models were used to compare rates of late-gestation stillbirth, obstetric interventions, and neonatal outcomes between app users and non-app users including calendar time, cluster, primiparity and other potential confounders as fixed effects, and hospital as a random effect. RESULTS: Of 140 052 women included, app users comprised 9.8% (n = 13 780). The stillbirth rate was not significantly lower among app users (1.67/1000 vs 2.29/1000) (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.79; 95% CI 0.51-1.23). App users were less likely to have a preterm birth (aOR 0.81; 0.75-0.88) or a composite adverse neonatal outcome (aOR 0.87; 0.81-0.93); however, they had higher rates of induction of labour (IOL) (aOR 1.27; 1.22-1.32) and early term birth (aOR 1.08; 1.04-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The MBM app had low uptake and its use was not associated with stillbirth rates but was associated with some neonatal benefit, and higher rates of IOL and early term birth. Use and acceptability of tools designed to promote fetal movement awareness is an important knowledge gap. The implications of increased IOL and early term births warrant consideration in future studies.

Follow up after breast cancer -- views of Australian women.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care after breast cancer treatment is increasingly complex as it aims to manage the long term effects of cancer and its treatment, including psychosocial needs. While survivorship care is traditionally delivered by surgeons and specialist oncologists in Australia, general practitioners are ideally placed to manage these issues. METHODS: This study explored the attitudes of 20 breast cancer survivors to GP involvement in follow up care through semi-structured telephone interviews, which were analysed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: Women were reluctant to change from specialist based care but identified many potential benefits of GP involvement in long term cancer care. They expressed an interest in shared care programs between specialists and GPs. Some participants thought that additional training may be required if GPs were to deliver this care. CONCLUSION: This study shows cautious interest from breast cancer survivors for increasing GP involvement in follow up care. These views should be considered as alternative models of care are developed.

Randomized controlled trial of a structured intervention to facilitate end-of-life decision making in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: This study tested the efficacy of an intervention on end-of-life decision making for patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty patients with metastatic cancer who were no longer being treated with curative intent (and 87 caregivers) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 55) or treatment as usual (n = 65). Primary outcome measures were the proportion of patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, timing of DNR orders, and place of death. Secondary outcome measures were completed at study enrollment, 3 weeks later, and 3 months later, including patients' knowledge, mood, and caregiver burden. RESULTS: High, but equivalent, rates of DNR orders were observed in both groups. In per-protocol analyses, DNR orders were placed earlier for patients who received the intervention (median, 27 v 12.5 days; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.9; P = .03) and they were more likely to avoid a hospital death (19% v 50% (95% CI, 11% to 50%; P = .004). Differences between the groups over time were evident for estimates of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation (CPR) success rates (P = .01) but not knowledge of CPR (P = .2). There was no evidence that the intervention resulted in more anxious or depressive symptoms. Caregivers experienced less burden in terms of disruption to schedule if the patient received the intervention (P = .05). CONCLUSION: An intervention, consisting of an informational pamphlet and discussion, was associated with earlier placement of DNR orders relative to death and less likelihood of death in hospital. There was no negative impact of the intervention on secondary outcomes, although the sample may have been too small to detect differences.