A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of smoking cessation services for women who smoke during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Although many pregnant women accept referrals to stop-smoking support, the uptake of appointments often remains low. AIM: The aim was to review the success of interventions to increase the uptake of external stop-smoking appointments following health professional referrals in pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and CINAHL were searched in February 2023 for studies with interventions to increase the uptake rates of external stop-smoking appointments among pregnant women who smoke. Eligible studies included randomised, controlled, cluster-randomised, quasi-randomised, before-and-after, interrupted time series, case-control and cohort studies. Cochrane tools assessing for bias and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Two before-and-after studies were included, including a combined total of 1996 women who smoked during pregnancy. Both studies had a serious risk of bias, and meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. One study testing carbon monoxide monitors and opt-out referrals showed increased uptake of external stop-smoking appointments, health professional referrals and smoking cessation rates compared to self-identified smoking status and opt-in referrals. Results were limited in the second study, which used carbon monoxide monitors, urinary cotinine levels and self-disclosed methods to identify the smoking status with opt-out referrals. Only post-intervention data were available on the uptake of appointments to external stop-smoking services. The number of health professional referrals increased, but change in smoking cessation rates was less clear. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to inform practice regarding strategies to increase the uptake of external stop-smoking appointments by women during pregnancy.

Healthcare costs of investigations for stillbirth from a population-based study in Australia.

Objective Stillbirth investigations incur healthcare costs, but these investigations are necessary to provide information that will help reduce the risk of a recurrent stillbirth, as well as advice regarding family planning and future pregnancies. The aims of this study were to determine the healthcare costs of investigations for stillbirths, identify drivers and assess cost differences between explained and unexplained stillbirths. Methods Data from 697 stillbirths were extracted from the Stillbirth Causes Study covering the period 2013-18. The dataset comprised all investigations related to stillbirth on the mother, baby and placenta. Unit costs applied were sourced from the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule, local hospital estimates and published literature. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess key factors in cost estimates. Results In all, 200 (28.7%) stillbirths were unexplained and 76.8% of these had between five and eight core investigations. Unexplained stillbirths were twice as likely to have eight core investigations as explained stillbirths (16.5% vs 7.7%). The estimated aggregated cost of stillbirth investigations for 697 stillbirths was A$2.13 million (mean A$3060, median A$4246). The main cost drivers were autopsies or cytogenetic screening. Mean costs were similar when stillbirths had known or unknown causes and by reason for stillbirth among cases with definable causes. Conclusion Investigations for stillbirth in Australia cost approximately A$4200 per stillbirth on average and are critical for managing future pregnancies and preventing more stillbirths. These findings improve our understanding of the costs that may be averted if stillbirths can be prevented through primary prevention initiatives. What is known about the topic? Approximately 2000 stillbirths occur each year in Australia, and this trend has not changed for several decades. Stillbirth investigations incur healthcare costs, but these investigations are necessary to provide information to help reduce the risk of a recurrent stillbirth and advice regarding family planning and future pregnancies. Recommendations for the core set of stillbirth investigations have recently been agreed upon by consensus. What does this paper add? The costs of stillbirth investigations are unknown in Australia. The assessment of these costs is challenging because not all investigations involved in stillbirths are recorded within formal administrative systems because a stillborn baby is not formally recognised as a patient. The present population-based analysis of 697 stillbirths in Australia estimated that, on average, A$4200 was spent on investigations for each stillbirth, with key drivers being autopsies and cytogenetic screening. These costs are typical, with most cases having between five and eight of the core eight recommended investigations. What are the implications for practitioners? There are cost implications for stillbirth investigations, and this analysis gives a true account of current practice in Australia. Together with the high downstream economic costs of stillbirths, the cost burden of stillbirth investigations is high but ultimately avoidable when practitioners adhere to the core investigations, build knowledge around preventable risk factors and use this information to reduce the number of stillbirths.

Stillbirth in Australia 1: The road to now: Two decades of stillbirth research and advocacy in Australia.

Stillbirth is a major public health problem with an enormous mortality burden and psychosocial impact on parents, families and the wider community both globally and in Australia. In 2015, Australia's late gestation stillbirth rate was over 30% higher than that of the best-performing countries globally, highlighting the urgent need for action. We present an overview of the foundations which led to the establishment of Australia's NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth (Stillbirth CRE) in 2017 and highlight key activities in the following areas: Opportunities to expand and improve collaborations between research teams; Supporting the conduct and development of innovative, high quality, collaborative research that incorporates a strong parent voice; Promoting effective translation of research into health policy and/or practice; and the Regional and global work of the Stillbirth CRE. We highlight the first-ever Senate Inquiry into Stillbirth in Australia in 2018. These events ultimately led to the development of a National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan for Australia with the aims of reducing stillbirth rates by 20% over the next five years, reducing the disparity in stillbirth rates between advantaged and disadvantaged communities, and improving care for all families who experience this loss.

Stillbirth in Australia 2: Working together to reduce stillbirth in Australia: The Safer Baby Bundle initiative.

The rate of late gestation stillbirth in Australia is unacceptably high. Up to one third of stillbirths are preventable, particularly beyond 28 weeks' gestation. The aim of this second paper in the Stillbirth in Australia series is to highlight one key national initiative, the Safer Baby Bundle (SBB), which has been led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth in partnership with state health departments. Addressing commonly identified evidence practice gaps, the SBB contains five elements that, when implemented together, should result in better outcomes than if performed individually. This paper describes the development of the SBB, what the initiative aims to achieve, and progress to date. By collaborating with Departments of Health and other partners to amplify uptake of the SBB, we anticipate a reduction of at least 20% in Australia's stillbirth rate after 28 weeks' gestation is achievable.

Stillbirth in Australia 6: The future of stillbirth research and education.

The first five papers in the Stillbirths in Australia series have described the current state of stillbirth research and education in Australia, as well as the national approach being adopted to prevention. This final paper in the series asks 'where to from here?'. What does the next 5-10 years hold for those of us working in this field and how much more can be achieved? There are signs that we are moving in the right direction with a national prevention program about to rollout to add to the gains of the last two decades, and evidence of a more consistent approach to bereavement care. However, we must sharpen our equity lens and ensure that all groups are included in these efforts.

Impact of traumatic birth on Australian obstetricians: A pilot feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic stress can adversely affect obstetricians' mental health and may affect care provision. Little is known about the impact of traumatic birth on the Australasian obstetric workforce. AIM: To assess the feasibility of conducting a binational survey of Australia and New Zealand obstetricians, trainees, and general practitioner obstetricians, to determine the prevalence of trauma exposure and associated factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Feasibility was assessed using a convergent mixed-methods design. The pilot online survey assessed traumatic exposure and included the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (work subscale), and Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (short form). Qualitative data were generated from survey comments and telephone interviews and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Using various recruitment strategies, 32 participants completed the survey, and eight completed interviews. Most participants were consultant obstetricians. Nearly all (n = 31, 96.9%) had been exposed to traumatic birth(s). Three-quarters had current symptoms of traumatic stress, one-quarter had symptoms of work-related burnout, but over two-fifths reported significant post-traumatic growth. Thematic analysis revealed perceptions that 'obstetricians experience substantial trauma', there is a 'culture of blame in obstetrics', and only 'in some workplaces it's supportive and safe'. Feasibility issues included the need to identify the respondent's level of training at the time when their most traumatic birth occurred, ensure anonymity of responses, and use a different tool to assess traumatic stress symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a full study of this important topic appeared feasible. Standardised measures were acceptable. Revision of some questions is required. Anonymity needs to be promoted.

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.

Interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: Identification of the causes of stillbirth is critical to the primary prevention of stillbirth and to the provision of optimal care in subsequent pregnancies. A wide variety of investigations are available, but there is currently no consensus on the optimal approach. Given their cost and potential to add further emotional burden to parents, there is a need to systematically assess the effect of these interventions on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and on rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different tests, protocols or guidelines for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth on outcomes for parents, including psychosocial outcomes, economic costs, and rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 May 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. We planned to include studies published as abstract only, provided there was sufficient information to allow us to assess study eligibility. We planned to exclude cross-over trials.Participants included parents (including mothers, fathers, and partners) who had experienced a stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or greater.This review focused on interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Such interventions are likely to be diverse, but could include:* review of maternal and family history, and current pregnancy and birth history;* clinical history of present illness;* maternal investigations (such as ultrasound, amniocentesis, antibody screening, etc.);* examination of the stillborn baby (including full autopsy, partial autopsy or noninvasive components, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT) scanning, and radiography);* umbilical cord examination;* placental examination including histopathology (microscopic examination of placental tissue); and* verbal autopsy (interviews with care providers and support people to ascertain causes, without examination of the baby).We planned to include trials assessing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth, compared with the absence of a test, protocol or guideline, or usual care (further details are presented in the Background, see Description of the intervention).We also planned to include trials comparing any test, protocol or guideline (or combinations of tests/protocols/guidelines) for investigating the causes of stillbirth with another, for example, the use of a limited investigation protocol compared with a comprehensive investigation protocol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility independently. MAIN RESULTS: We excluded five studies that were not RCTs. There were no eligible trials for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of RCT evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for investigating and identifying the causes of stillbirth. Seeking to determine the causes of stillbirth is an essential component of quality maternity care, but it remains unclear what impact these interventions have on the psychosocial outcomes of parents and families, the rates of diagnosis of the causes of stillbirth, and the care and management of subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth. Due to the absence of trials, this review is unable to inform clinical practice regarding the investigation of stillbirths, and the specific investigations that would determine the causes.Future RCTs addressing this research question would be beneficial, but the settings in which the trials take place, and their design, need to be given careful consideration. Trials need to be conducted with the utmost care and consideration for the needs, concerns, and values of parents and families. Assessment of longer-term psychosocial variables, economic costs to health services, and effects on subsequent pregnancy care and outcomes should also be considered in any future trials.

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing different strategies to implement noninvasive prenatal testing into a Down syndrome screening program.

BACKGROUND: Currently, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is only recommended in high-risk women following conventional Down syndrome (DS) screening, and it has not yet been included in the Australian DS screening program. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies of NIPT for DS screening in comparison with current practice. METHODS: A decision-analytic approach modelled a theoretical cohort of 300,000 singleton pregnancies. The strategies compared were the following: current practice, NIPT as a second-tier investigation, NIPT only in women >35 years, NIPT only in women >40 years and NIPT for all women. The direct costs (low and high estimates) were derived using both health system costs and patient out-of-pocket expenses. The number of DS cases detected and procedure-related losses (PRL) were compared between strategies. The incremental cost per case detected was the primary measure of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Universal NIPT costs an additional $134,636,832 compared with current practice, but detects 123 more DS cases (at an incremental cost of $1,094,608 per case) and avoids 90 PRL. NIPT for women >40 years was the most cost-effective strategy, costing an incremental $81,199 per additional DS case detected and avoiding 95 PRL. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of NIPT needs to decrease significantly if it is to replace current practice on a purely cost-effectiveness basis. However, it may be beneficial to use NIPT as first-line screening in selected high-risk patients. Further evaluation is needed to consider the longer-term costs and benefits of screening.

Birthplace in New South Wales, Australia: an analysis of perinatal outcomes using routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes for women who give birth in hospital compared with at home are the subject of ongoing debate. We aimed to determine whether a retrospective linked data study using routinely collected data was a viable means to compare perinatal and maternal outcomes and interventions in labour by planned place of birth at the onset of labour in one Australian state. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected linked data from the New South Wales Perinatal Data Collection, Admitted Patient Data Collection, Register of Congenital Conditions, Registry of Birth Deaths and Marriages and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Eight years of data provided a sample size of 258,161 full-term women and their infants. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of neonatal mortality and morbidity as used in the Birthplace in England study. RESULTS: Women who planned to give birth in a birth centre or at home were significantly more likely to have a normal labour and birth compared with women in the labour ward group. There were no statistically significant differences in stillbirth and early neonatal deaths between the three groups, although we had insufficient statistical power to test reliably for these differences. CONCLUSION: This study provides information to assist the development and evaluation of different places of birth across Australia. It is feasible to examine perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth using routinely collected linked data, although very large data sets will be required to measure rare outcomes associated with place of birth in a low risk population, especially in countries like Australia where homebirth rates are low.

The Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System: an evaluation of stakeholder engagement, usefulness, simplicity, acceptability, data quality and stability.

BACKGROUND: The Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System (AMOSS) conducts active, prospective surveillance of severe maternal conditions in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). AMOSS captures greater than 96% of all births, and utilises an online, active case-based negative reporting system. AIM: To evaluate AMOSS using the United States Centres for Disease Control (MMWR 2001; 50 (RR13): 1-35.) surveillance system evaluation framework. METHODS: Data were gathered using multiple methods, including an anonymous online survey administered to 353 AMOSS data collectors, in addition to review of case data received during 2009-2011, documented records of project board and advisory group meeting minutes, publications, annual reports and the AMOSS database. RESULTS: AMOSS is a research system characterised by its simplicity and efficiency. The socio-demographic, risk factor and severe morbidity clinical data collected on rare conditions are not duplicated in other routine data systems. AMOSS is functioning well and has sustained buy-in from clinicians, stakeholders and consumers and a high level of acceptability to data collectors in ANZ maternity units. CONCLUSIONS: AMOSS is the only existing national system of surveillance for rare and severe maternal conditions in ANZ and therefore serves an important function, utilising data collected from reliable sources, in an effective, efficient and timely way.

Developing a Core Competency Model and Educational Framework for Primary Maternity Services: a national consensus approach.

BACKGROUND: An appropriately educated and competent workforce is crucial to an effective health care system. The National Health Workforce Taskforce (now Health Workforce Australia) and the Maternity Services Inter-Jurisdictional Committee funded a project to develop Core Competencies and Educational Framework for Primary Maternity Services in Australia. These competencies recognise the interdisciplinary nature of maternity care in Australia where care is provided by general practitioners, obstetricians and midwives as well as other professionals. PARTICIPANTS: Key stakeholders from professional organisations and providers of services related to maternity care and consumers of services. METHODS: A national consensus approach was undertaken using consultation processes with a Steering Committee, a wider Reference Group and public consultation. FINDINGS: A national Core Competencies and Educational Framework for Primary Maternity Services in Australia was developed through an iterative process with a range of key stakeholders. There are a number of strategies that may assist in the integration of these into primary maternity service provider professional groups' education and practice. CONCLUSIONS: The Core Competencies and Educational Framework are based on an interprofessional approach to learning and primary maternity service practice. They have sought to value professional expertise and stimulate awareness and respect for the roles of all primary maternity service providers. The competencies and framework described in this paper are now a critical component of Australian maternity services as they are included in actions in the newly released National Maternity Services Plan and thus have relevance for all providers of Australian maternity services.

Women's experiences of care and their concerns and needs following a significant primary postpartum hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: In the context of rising rates of postpartum hemorrhage and little data about its effect on women, this study aimed to describe the experiences of care, and the concerns and needs of women after a significant postpartum hemorrhage. METHODS: A cohort of 206 women with a primary postpartum hemorrhage of 1,500 mL or more and/or a peripartum fall in hemoglobin concentration to 7 g/dL or less and/or of 4 g/dL or more was recruited from 17 major hospitals in Australasia. Women rated their satisfaction with care and provided written responses to questions in postpartum questionnaires completed in the first week and at 2 and 4 months postpartum. RESULTS: In relation to care in hospital, consistently over 20 percent women responded that their needs for information, acknowledgment, and reassurance were only met sometimes, rarely, or never. Sixty-two percent reported that they were given adequate information about their likely physical recovery, and 48 percent about their likely emotional recovery. Four major themes were identified in response to the open-ended questions: adequacy of care, emotional responses to the experience, implications for the future, and concerns for their baby. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an important step in identifying the negative impact of experiencing a significant postpartum hemorrhage during childbirth for women who survive. Our results suggest that health professionals should pay greater attention to these women's informational and emotional needs.

Emotional and physical health outcomes after significant primary post-partum haemorrhage (PPH): a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) rates are rising; however, data on the health impact on women are lacking. AIMS: To describe the emotional and physical health outcomes for women following PPH. METHODS: A cohort of 206 women with primary PPH of 1500 mL or more, and/or peripartum fall in haemoglobin concentration to 7 g/dL or less, and/or of 4 g/dL or less, was recruited from 17 Australian/New Zealand hospitals. Women completed questionnaires in the first week, and at two and four months post-partum. Obstetric details came from hospital records. Outcomes were anxiety; post-natal depression (PND); fatigue; post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); general health (SF-36); physical health problems; post-natal bleeding duration; hospital readmission. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent completed the two-month and 81% the four-month questionnaires; 28% reported bleeding continuously for more than six weeks; 10% required hospital readmission within two months. Anxiety scores were in the medium range; 11 and 13% were at risk of PND at two and four months, respectively; median total fatigue scores were 17 at two and 15 at four months; 5% showed evidence of PTSD at two and 3% at four months; women scored highly in most SF-36 categories and showed improvements over time in all but general and mental health. Physical health concerns were comparable to those reported for general post-natal populations, with the exception of uterine infection (6% at two months). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of women experiencing PPH, emotional and physical health outcomes were similar to those reported in general post-natal populations, with the exception of post-natal bleeding duration, uterine infection and hospital readmission.