Working it out: Will the improved management of leaky bodies in the workplace create a dialogue between medical sociology and disability studies?

This article focuses on the workplace as a significant site of convergence between the disciplines of medical sociology and disability studies. As disability remains on the margins of sociological exploration and theorising relating to health and work, disabled workers remain on the margins of the workforce, subject to disproportionate rates of unemployment, under employment and workplace mistreatment. The article focuses on the experiences of people with 'leaky bodies', focussing specifically on employees who experience troubling menstruation and/or have gynaecological health conditions. It brings together data from three studies conducted between 2017 and 2020; interviews with disabled academics (n = 75), university staff with gynaecological health conditions (n = 23), and key stakeholders in universities (n = 36) (including university executives, line managers and human resources staff). These studies had separate, but linked foci, on the inaccessibility of workplaces, managing gynaecological health conditions at work and supporting disabled people at work respectively. Drawing on the Social Relational Model of disability and theories of embodiment, we explore the experiences and management of workers with leaky bodies in UK University workplaces. Data illustrates how workplace practices undermine embodied experiences of workers with 'leaky' bodies by maintaining workplaces which ignore their material reality. We highlight that addressing embodied needs alongside acknowledging disabled people as an oppressed political category represents a theoretical meeting point for disability studies and medical sociology.

Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study.

BACKGROUND: Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants'). METHODS: We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13). RESULTS: Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. FUTURE WORK: The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. LIMITATIONS: Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a 'randomised trial' in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

The Arabin pessary to prevent preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix: the STOPPIT 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is common in twins and accounts for significant mortality and morbidity. There are no effective preventative treatments. Some studies have suggested that, in twin pregnancy complicated by a short cervix, the Arabin pessary, which fits around the cervix and can be inserted as an outpatient procedure, reduces preterm birth and prevents neonatal morbidity. OBJECTIVE: STOPPIT 2 aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of the Arabin cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. DESIGN: STOPPIT 2 was a pragmatic, open label, multicentre randomised controlled trial with two treatment group - the Arabin pessary plus standard care (intervention) and standard care alone (control). Participants were initially recruited into the screening phase of the study, when cervical length was measured. Women with a measured cervical length of ≤ 35 mm were then recruited into the treatment phase of the study. An economic evaluation considered cost-effectiveness and a qualitative substudy explored the experiences of participants and clinicians. SETTING: Antenatal clinics in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Women with twin pregnancy at < 21 weeks' gestation with known chorionicity and gestation established by scan at ≤ 16 weeks' gestation. INTERVENTIONS: Ultrasound scan to establish cervical length. Women with a cervical length of ≤ 35 mm at 18+ 0-20+ 6 weeks' gestation were randomised to standard care or Arabin pessary plus standard care. Randomisation was performed by computer and accessed through a web-based browser. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric - all births before 34+ 0 weeks' gestation following the spontaneous onset of labour; and neonatal - composite of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth or neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, early respiratory morbidity, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis or proven sepsis, all measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery. RESULTS: A total of 2228 participants were recruited to the screening phase, of whom 2170 received a scan and 503 were randomised: 250 to Arabin pessary and 253 to standard care alone. The rate of the primary obstetric outcome was 18.4% (46/250) in the intervention group and 20.6% (52/253) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.38; p = 0.54). The rate of the primary neonatal outcome was 13.4% (67/500) and 15.0% (76/506) in the intervention group and control group, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.36; p = 0.52). The pessary was largely well tolerated and clinicians found insertion and removal 'easy' or 'fairly easy' in the majority of instances. The simple costs analysis showed that pessary treatment is no more costly than standard care. LIMITATIONS: There was the possibility of a type II error around smaller than anticipated benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the Arabin pessary did not reduce preterm birth or adverse neonatal outcomes in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. The pessary either is ineffective at reducing preterm birth or has an effect size of < 0.4. FUTURE WORK: Women with twin pregnancy remain at risk of preterm birth; work is required to find treatments for this. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98835694 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235181. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Women who are pregnant with twins have a much higher risk of going into labour early and having an early (preterm) birth than women who are pregnant with only one baby. For this reason, babies who are twins are much more likely to die or to have serious health complications in the first months of life. Although we know that women with twin pregnancy are at risk, there are no treatments that are recommended to prevent early births. Some studies have suggested that the Arabin pessary can help. The Arabin pessary is a silicone ring that fits around the cervix (neck of the womb). The pessary can be put in place in a clinic without any need for an anaesthetic. Some studies have suggested that the Arabin pessary helps and others have suggested that it does not. It appears to be most helpful when the cervix (neck of the womb) is already shortening. Shortening of the neck of the womb is a sign that early birth is even more likely. We asked women with twin pregnancy to take part in STOPPIT 2. Women who agreed had an ultrasound scan of the neck of the womb, which measured its length. Those with a short cervix were randomised to be offered the Arabin pessary (in addition to standard care) or standard care alone. This allocation was carried out 'at random' by a computer. We followed women up until the end of their pregnancy and collected information on the babies' health after birth. We found that the Arabin pessary did not reduce the risk of an early birth; nor did it reduce the risk of health complications for the baby. We conclude that the Arabin pessary should not be used for this purpose.