Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0).

INTRODUCTION: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17395671.

Evaluation of labour and birth education by midwifery educators: A qualitative study from Turkey.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery students' education regarding labor and birth is crucial because it directly affects the quality of care provided to women in labor. AIMS: Exploring educators' experiences of delivering labor and birth education to midwifery students and evaluating the circumstances that affect the quality of labor and birth education METHODS: This was a qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 educators teaching midwifery in 16 midwifery departments at universities in Turkey. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted. All transcripts were evaluated by two researchers, and codes were created. The codes formed the subthemes in terms of similarities and differences; themes were created based on combining subthemes. FINDINGS: Three themes were identified. The first - "impacts of global changes on labor and birth education"- shows how labor and birth is affected by changing policies, philosophies, individuals, and cultures. The second theme - "opportunities/obstacles in labor and birth education"- shows how sources of information, as well as individual and systemic factors, create opportunities or obstacles for the quality of labor and birth education. The final theme - "recommendations for quality labor and birth education"- presents participants' suggestions for the effective integration of courses, use of sources of information, and updating of curriculum. DISCUSSION: Changing policies, philosophies, individuals, and cultures affect labor and birth education. Individual and systemic factors and information sources create opportunities or barriers for the quality of labor and birth education. CONCLUSION: A positive childbirth experience is a basic human right for both women and newborns. This can be made possible by professionals who have received quality labor and birth education. Thus, investment in midwifery education is an important cost-effective approach to improving health outcomes.

The childbirth experience: A systematic review of predictors and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Birth is often viewed as a pathological event, consequently, there has been an increase in literature focusing on predictors, experience and implications of traumatic childbirth and childbirth-related posttraumatic stress. However, to fully understand childbirth experiences a salutogenic perspective is required. This enables an understanding of what facilitates a positive childbirth experience besides what places women at risk of experiencing traumatic childbirth. OBJECTIVE: To identify the psychosocial factors that could contribute to or be influenced by women's subjective accounts of childbirth. METHOD: An in-depth literature search across four databases was undertaken. Quality appraisal based on internal and external validity was conducted and a combined numerical summary and categorical description were undertaken. FINDINGS: Nineteen papers were included in the review and the variables grouped into three categories. The variables relate to 'Measures of labour and birth experience' (discussing the impact of events and perceptions during labour and birth). The second category discusses how 'support and relationships' can potentially shape the birth experience or be altered by it and finally, 'Psychological variables: influence and impact' is examined extensively. DISCUSSION: The results of the review highlight significant contradictory evidence of what influences birth experiences. The findings confirm the dearth of available literature concerning positive birth experiences and most variables identified were pathogenic. This review suggests that such factors for PTSD may differ from those that influence birth experiences and should be examined separately. An enhanced understanding of the range of experiences is required to support women's rights in achieving a positive birth.

Qualitative exploration of women's experiences of intramuscular pethidine or remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia for labour pain.

OBJECTIVES: To explore women's experiences of remifentanil or pethidine for labour pain and infant feeding behaviours at 6weeks post partum. DESIGN: Qualitative postnatal sub-study to the randomised controlled trial of remifentanil intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE). Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted at 6 weeks post partum, and thematic analysis was undertaken. SETTING: Women recruited to the RESPITE trial from seven UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty women consented and 49 (30 remifentanil group and 19 pethidine group) completed the interview. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged which encompassed women's antenatal plans for pain management (Birth Expectations) through to their future preferences for pain relief (Reflections for Future Choices). Many women who used remifentanil felt it provided effective pain relief (Effectiveness of Pain Relief), whereas women in the pethidine group expressed more mixed views. Both groups described side effects, with women using pethidine frequently reporting nausea (Negative Physiological Responses) and women using remifentanil describing more cognitive effects (Cognitive Effects). Some women who used remifentanil reported restricted movements due to technical aspects of drug administration and fear of analgesia running out (Issues with Drug Administration). Women described how remifentanil enabled them to maintain their ability to stay focused during the birth (Enabling a Sense of Control). There was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and continuation between pethidine and remifentanil groups (Impact on Infant Behaviour and Breastfeeding). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative insights from a follow-up study to a trial which explored experiences of intravenous remifentanil PCA with intramuscular pethidine injection found that remifentanil appeared to provide effective pain relief while allowing women to remain alert and focused during labour, although as with pethidine, some side effects were noted. Overall, there was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and duration between the two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29654603.

Cross-cultural development and psychometric evaluation of a measure to assess fear of childbirth prior to pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of childbirth fear, in advance of pregnancy, and early identification of modifiable factors contributing to fear can inform public health initiatives and/or school-based educational programming for the next generation of maternity care consumers. We developed and evaluated a short fear of birth scale that incorporates the most common dimensions of fear reported by men and women prior to pregnancy, fear of: labour pain, being out of control and unable to cope with labour and birth, complications, and irreversible physical damage. METHODS: University students in six countries (Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Iceland, and the United States, n = 2240) participated in an online survey to assess their fears and attitudes about birth. We report internal consistency reliability, corrected-item-to-total correlations, factor loadings and convergent and discriminant validity of the new scale. RESULTS: The Childbirth Fear - Prior to Pregnancy (CFPP) scale showed high internal consistency across samples (α > 0.86). All corrected-item-to total correlations exceeded 0.45, supporting the uni-dimensionality of the scale. Construct validity of the CFPP was supported by a high correlation between the new scale and a two-item visual analogue scale that measures fear of birth (r > 0.6 across samples). Weak correlations of the CFPP with scores on measures that assess related psychological states (anxiety, depression and stress) support the discriminant validity of the scale. CONCLUSION: The CFPP is a short, reliable and valid measure of childbirth fear among young women and men in six countries who plan to have children.

Incentives to promote breastfeeding: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Few women in industrialized countries achieve the World Health Organization's recommendation to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months. Governments are increasingly seeking new interventions to address this problem, including the use of incentives. The goal of this study was to assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of incentive interventions, delivered within or outside of health care settings, to individuals and/or their families seeking to increase and sustain breastfeeding in the first 6 months after birth. METHODS: Searches of electronic databases, reference lists, and grey literature were conducted to identify relevant reports of published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. All study designs published in English, which met our definition of incentives and that were from a developed country, were eligible for inclusion. Abstract and full-text article review with sequential data extraction were conducted by 2 independent authors. RESULTS: Sixteen full reports were included in the review. The majority evaluated multicomponent interventions of varying frequency, intensity, and duration. Incentives involved providing access to breast pumps, gifts, vouchers, money, food packages, and help with household tasks, but little consensus in findings was revealed. The lack of high-quality, randomized controlled trials identified by this review and the multicomponent nature of the interventions prohibited meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that the overall effect of providing incentives for breastfeeding compared with no incentives is unclear due to study heterogeneity and the variation in study quality. Further evidence on breastfeeding incentives offered to women is required to understand the possible effects of these interventions.

A meta-ethnographic study of health care staff perceptions of the WHO/UNICEF Baby Friendly Health Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of the Baby Friendly Health Initiative (BFHI) is associated with increases in breastfeeding initiation and duration of exclusive breastfeeding and 'any' breastfeeding. However, implementation of the BFHI is challenging. AIM: To identify and synthesise health care staff perceptions of the WHO/UNICEF BFHI and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation. METHOD: Seven qualitative studies, published between 2003 and 2013 were analysed using meta-ethnographic synthesis. FINDINGS: Three overarching themes were identified. First the BFHI was viewed variously as a 'desirable innovation or an unfriendly imposition'. Participants were passionate about supporting breastfeeding and improving consistency in the information provided. This view was juxtaposed against the belief that BFHI represents an imposition on women's choices, and is a costly exercise for little gain in breastfeeding rates. The second theme highlighted cultural and organisational constraints and obstacles to BFHI implementation including resource issues, entrenched staff practices and staff rationalisation of non-compliance. Theme three captured a level of optimism and enthusiasm amongst participants who could identify a dedicated and credible leader to lead the BFHI change process. Collaborative engagement with all key stakeholders was crucial. CONCLUSIONS: Health care staff hold variant beliefs and attitudes towards BFHI, which can help or hinder the implementation process. The introduction of the BFHI at a local level requires detailed planning, extensive collaboration, and an enthusiastic and committed leader to drive the change process. This synthesis has highlighted the importance of thinking more creatively about the translation of this global policy into effective change at the local level.

Managing risk in cancer presentation, detection and referral: a qualitative study of primary care staff views.

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, there have been a number of national initiatives to promote earlier detection and prompt referral of patients presenting to primary care with signs and symptoms of cancer. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of a range of primary care staff in promoting earlier presentation, detection and referral of patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer. SETTING: Six primary care practices in northwest England. PARTICIPANTS: 39 primary care staff from a variety of disciplines took part in five group and four individual interviews. RESULTS: The global theme to emerge from the interviews was 'managing risk', which had three underpinning organising themes: 'complexity', relating to uncertainty of cancer diagnoses, service fragmentation and plethora of guidelines; 'continuity', relating to relationships between practice staff and their patients and between primary and secondary care; 'conflict' relating to policy drivers and staff role boundaries. A key concern of staff was that policymakers and those implementing cancer initiatives did not fully understand how risk was managed within primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care staff expressed a range of views and opinions on the benefits of cancer initiatives. National initiatives did not appear to wholly resolve issues in managing risk for all practitioners. Staff were concerned about the number of guidelines and priorities they were expected to implement. These issues need to be considered by policymakers when developing and implementing new initiatives.