Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used, and overall rates are increasing globally. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 September 2022), and reference lists of the retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs. Trials were eligible for inclusion if women were diagnosed with GDM during pregnancy and the trial compared tighter and less-tight glycaemic targets during management. We defined tighter glycaemic targets as lower numerical glycaemic concentrations, and less-tight glycaemic targets as higher numerical glycaemic concentrations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for carrying out data collection, assessing risk of bias, and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data for the four included studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Primary maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. Primary infant outcomes included perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age, composite of mortality or serious morbidity, and neurosensory disability. MAIN RESULTS: This was an update of a previous review completed in 2016. We included four RCTs (reporting on 1731 women) that compared a tighter glycaemic control with less-tight glycaemic control in women diagnosed with GDM. Three studies were parallel RCTs, and one study was a stepped-wedged cluster-RCT. The trials took place in Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA. We judged the overall risk of bias to be unclear. Two trials were only published in abstract form. Tight glycaemic targets used in the trials ranged between ≤ 5.0 and 5.1 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and ≤ 6.7 and 7.4 mmol/L postprandial. Less-tight targets for glycaemic control used in the included trials ranged between < 5.3 and 5.8 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and < 7.8 and 8.0 mmol/L postprandial. For the maternal outcomes, compared with less-tight glycaemic control, the evidence suggests a possible increase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with tighter glycaemic control (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.69, 2 trials, 1491 women; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. Tighter glycaemic control likely results in little to no difference in caesarean section rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17, 3 studies, 1662 women; moderate certainty evidence) or induction of labour rates (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18, 1 study, 1096 women; moderate certainty evidence) compared with less-tight control. No data were reported for the outcomes of subsequent development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, and postnatal depression. For the infant outcomes, it was difficult to determine if there was a difference in perinatal mortality (RR not estimable, 2 studies, 1499 infants; low certainty evidence), and there was likely no difference in being large-for-gestational-age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence suggests a possible reduction in the composite of mortality or serious morbidity with tighter glycaemic control (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, 3 trials, 1559 infants; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. There is probably little difference between groups in infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Tighter glycaemic control may not reduce adiposity in infants of women with GDM compared with less-tight control (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI -3.23 to 1.99, 1 study, 60 infants; low certainty evidence), but the wide CI suggests significant uncertainty. We found no data for the long-term outcomes of diabetes or neurosensory disability. Women assigned to tighter glycaemic control experienced an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy compared with women assigned to less-tight glycaemic control (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 4 trials, 1718 women). Tighter glycaemic control reducedadherence with treatment compared with less-tight glycaemic control (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51, 1 trial, 395 women). Overall the certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from low to moderate, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is based on four trials (1731 women) with an overall unclear risk of bias. The trials provided data on most primary outcomes and suggest that tighter glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The risk of birth of a large-for-gestational-age infant and perinatal mortality may be similar between groups, and tighter glycaemic targets may result in a possible reduction in composite of death or severe infant morbidity. However, the CIs for these outcomes are wide, suggesting both benefit and harm. There remains limited evidence regarding the benefit of different glycaemic targets for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and infant health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations vary widely and are currently reliant on consensus given the lack of high-certainty evidence. Further high-quality trials are needed, and these should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies; include women's experiences; and assess health services costs in order to confirm the current findings. Two trials are ongoing.

Relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth.

BACKGROUND: Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.

Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.Two overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.EffectiveLifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).PromisingNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.Ineffective or possibly harmful Lifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).Probably ineffective or harmful interventionsInsulin versus oral therapyFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).InconclusiveLifestyle versus usual careThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.Insulin versus dietThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus insulinThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).No conclusions possibleNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.

Enablers and barriers for women with gestational diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control - a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic target recommendations vary widely between international professional organisations for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Some studies have reported women's experiences of having GDM, but little is known how this relates to their glycaemic targets. The aim of this study was to identify enablers and barriers for women with GDM to achieve optimal glycaemic control. METHODS: Women with GDM were recruited from two large, geographically different, hospitals in New Zealand to participate in a semi-structured interview to explore their views and experiences focusing on enablers and barriers to achieving optimal glycaemic control. Final thematic analysis was performed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Sixty women participated in the study. Women reported a shift from their initial negative response to accepting their diagnosis but disliked the constant focus on numbers. Enablers and barriers were categorised into ten domains across the three study questions. Enablers included: the ability to attend group teaching sessions with family and hear from women who have had GDM; easy access to a diabetes dietitian with diet recommendations tailored to a woman's context including ethnic food and financial considerations; free capillary blood glucose (CBG) monitoring equipment, health shuttles to take women to appointments; child care when attending clinic appointments; and being taught CBG testing by a community pharmacist. Barriers included: lack of health information, teaching sessions, consultations, and food diaries in a woman's first language; long waiting times at clinic appointments; seeing a different health professional every clinic visit; inconsistent advice; no tailored physical activities assessments; not knowing where to access appropriate information on the internet; unsupportive partners, families, and workplaces; and unavailability of social media or support groups for women with GDM. Perceived judgement by others led some women only to share their GDM diagnosis with their partners. This created social isolation. CONCLUSION: Women with GDM report multiple enablers and barriers to achieving optimal glycaemic control. The findings of this study may assist health professionals and diabetes in pregnancy services to improve their care for women with GDM and support them to achieve optimal glycaemic control.

Oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health issue with rates increasing globally. Gestational diabetes, glucose intolerance first recognised during pregnancy, usually resolves after birth and is associated with short- and long-term complications for the mother and her infant. Treatment options can include oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for treating women with GDM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (14 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for treating pregnant women with GDM. We included studies comparing oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies with 1) placebo/standard care, 2) another oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy, 3) combined oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. Trials using insulin as the comparator were excluded as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane systematic review.Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data and data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (19 publications) (1487 women and their babies). Eight studies had data that could be included in meta-analyses. Studies were conducted in Brazil, India, Israel, UK, South Africa and USA. The studies varied in diagnostic criteria and treatment targets for glycaemic control for GDM. The overall risk of bias was 'unclear' due to inadequate reporting of methodology. Using GRADE the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality. Evidence was downgraded for risk of bias (reporting bias, lack of blinding), inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and for oral anti-diabetic therapy versus placebo for generalisability. Oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies versus placebo/standard careThere was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and placebo groups for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.90; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.34; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence), perineal trauma (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; one study, 375 women, very low-quality evidence) or induction of labour (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.76; one study, 375 women; very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for development of type 2 diabetes or other pre-specified GRADE maternal outcomes (return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression). For the infant, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) between infants whose mothers had been treated with glibenclamide and those in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.58; one study, 375, low-quality evidence). No data were reported for other infant primary or GRADE outcomes (perinatal mortality, death or serious morbidity composite, neurosensory disability in later childhood, neonatal hypoglycaemia, adiposity, diabetes). Metformin versus glibenclamideThere was no evidence of a difference between metformin- and glibenclamide-treated groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.30; three studies, 508 women, moderate-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.20; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72, four studies, 554 women, I2 = 61%, Tau2 = 0.07 low-quality evidence), induction of labour (0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07; one study, 159 women; low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.52; two studies, 158 women; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for development of type 2 diabetes or other pre-specified GRADE maternal outcomes (return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression). For the infant there was no evidence of a difference between the metformin- and glibenclamide-exposed groups for the risk of being born LGA (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.83; two studies, 246 infants, I2 = 54%, Tau2 = 0.30 low-quality evidence). Metformin was associated with a decrease in a death or serious morbidity composite (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94; one study, 159 infants, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups for neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.77; four studies, 554 infants, low-quality evidence) or perinatal mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.55, two studies, 359 infants). No data were reported for neurosensory disability in later childhood or for adiposity or diabetes. Glibenclamide versus acarboseThere was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and acarbose from one study (43 women) for any of their maternal or infant primary outcomes (caesarean section, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.70; low-quality evidence; perinatal mortality - no events; low-quality evidence; LGA , RR 2.38, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.46; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between glibenclamide and acarbose for neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 6.33, 95% CI 0.87 to 46.32; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for other pre-specified GRADE or primary maternal outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression, induction of labour) or neonatal outcomes (death or serious morbidity composite, adiposity or diabetes). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were insufficient data comparing oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies with placebo/standard care (lifestyle advice) to inform clinical practice. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions as to the benefits of one oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy over another due to limited reporting of data for the primary and secondary outcomes in this review. Short- and long-term clinical outcomes for this review were inadequately reported or not reported. Current choice of oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy appears to be based on clinical preference, availability and national clinical practice guidelines.The benefits and potential harms of one oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy compared with another, or compared with placebo/standard care remains unclear and requires further research. Future trials should attempt to report on the core outcomes suggested in this review, in particular long-term outcomes for the woman and the infant that have been poorly reported to date, women's experiences and cost benefit.

Intermittent auscultation (IA) of fetal heart rate in labour for fetal well-being.

BACKGROUND: The goal of fetal monitoring in labour is the early detection of a hypoxic baby. There are a variety of tools and methods available for intermittent auscultation (IA) of the fetal heart rate (FHR). Low- and middle-income countries usually have only access to a Pinard/Laënnec or the use of a hand-held Doppler device. Currently, there is no robust evidence to guide clinical practice on the most effective IA tool to use, timing intervals and length of listening to the fetal heart for women during established labour. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of different tools for IA of the fetal heart rate during labour including frequency and duration of auscultation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (19 September 2016), contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs comparing different tools and methods used for intermittent fetal auscultation during labour for fetal and maternal well-being. Quasi-RCTs, and cross-over designs were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each trial. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (6241 women and 6241 babies), but only two studies are included in the meta-analyses (3242 women and 3242 babies). Both were judged as high risk for performance bias due to the inability to blind the participants and healthcare providers to the interventions. Evidence was graded as moderate to very low quality; the main reasons for downgrading were study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Intermittent Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) using Cardiotocography (CTG) with routine Pinard (one trial)There was no clear difference between groups in low Apgar scores at five minutes (reported as < six at five minutes after birth) (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.83, 633 babies, very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for perinatal mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.25; 633 infants, very low-quality evidence). Neonatal seizures were reduced in the EFM group (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 633 infants, very low-quality evidence). Other important infant outcomes were not reported: mortality or serious morbidity (composite outcome), cerebral palsy or neurosensory disability. For maternal outcomes, women allocated to intermittent electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) (CTG) had higher rates of caesarean section for fetal distress (RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.80, 633 women, moderate-quality evidence) compared with women allocated to routine Pinard. There was no clear difference between groups in instrumental vaginal births (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.49, low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported (maternal mortality, instrumental vaginal birth for fetal distress and or acidosis, analgesia in labour, mobility or restriction during labour, and postnatal depression). Doppler ultrasonography with routine Pinard (two trials)There was no clear difference between groups in Apgar scores < seven at five minutes after birth (reported as < six in one of the trials) (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.87; two trials, 2598 babies, I2 = 72%, very low-quality evidence); there was high heterogeneity for this outcome. There was no clear difference between groups for perinatal mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.40; 2597 infants, two studies, very low-quality evidence), or neonatal seizures (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.91; 627 infants, one study, very low-quality evidence). Other important infant outcomes were not reported (cord blood acidosis, composite of mortality and serious morbidity, cerebral palsy, neurosensory disability). Only one study reported maternal outcomes. Women allocated to Doppler ultrasonography had higher rates of caesarean section for fetal distress compared with those allocated to routine Pinard (RR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64 to 4.48, 627 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in instrumental vaginal births between groups (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.32, 627 women, low-quality evidence). Other maternal outcomes were not reported. Intensive Pinard versus routine Pinard (one trial)One trial compared intensive Pinard (a research midwife following the protocol in a one-to-one care situation) with routine Pinard (as per protocol but midwife may be caring for more than one woman in labour). There was no clear difference between groups in low Apgar score (reported as < six this trial) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.31, 625 babies, very low-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences identified for perinatal mortality (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.67; 625 infants, very low-quality evidence), or neonatal seizures (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.88, 625 infants, very low-quality evidence)). Other infant outcomes were not reported. For maternal outcomes, there were no clear differences between groups for caesarean section or instrumental delivery (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.38, and RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.11, respectively, 625 women, both low-quality evidence)) Other outcomes were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using a hand-held (battery and wind-up) Doppler and intermittent CTG with an abdominal transducer without paper tracing for IA in labour was associated with an increase in caesarean sections due to fetal distress. There was no clear difference in neonatal outcomes (low Apgar scores at five minutes after birth, neonatal seizures or perinatal mortality). Long-term outcomes for the baby (including neurodevelopmental disability and cerebral palsy) were not reported. The quality of the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low and several important outcomes were not reported which means that uncertainty remains regarding the use of IA of FHR in labour.As intermittent CTG and Doppler were associated with higher rates of caesarean sections compared with routine Pinard monitoring, women, health practitioners and policy makers need to consider these results in the absence of evidence of short- and long-term benefits for the mother or baby.Large high-quality randomised trials, particularly in low-income settings, are needed. Trials should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes, comparing different monitoring tools and timing for IA.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used and rates are increasing globally. Risk factors associated with GDM include advanced maternal age, obesity, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, and a previous history of GDM, macrosomia or unexplained stillbirth. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 February 2016) and reference lists of the retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included one randomised controlled trial. Cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for the one included study. We sought additional information from one trial author but had no response. We assessed the quality of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included one Canadian trial of 180 women, recruited between 20 to 32 weeks' gestation, who had been diagnosed with GDM. Data from 171 of the 180 women were published as a conference abstract and no full report has been identified. The overall risk of bias of the single included study was judged to be unclear.The included trial did not report on any of this review's primary outcomes. For the mother, these were hypertension disorders of pregnancy or subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. For the infant, our primary outcomes were (perinatal (fetal and neonatal) mortality; large-for-gestational age; composite of death or severe morbidity or later childhood neurosensory disability).The trial did report data relating to some of this review's secondary outcomes. There was no clear difference in caesarean section rates for women assigned to using strict glycaemic targets (pre-prandial 5.0 mmol/L (90 mg/L) and at one-hour postprandial 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL)) (28/85, 33%) when compared with women assigned to using liberal glycaemic targets (pre-prandial 5.8 mmol/L (103 mg/dL) and at one-hour postprandial 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL)) (21/86, 24%) (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.18, one trial, 171 women; very low quality). Using the GRADE approach, we found the quality of the evidence to bevery low for caesarean section due to poor reporting of risk of bias, imprecision and publication bias. Strict glycaemic targets were associated with an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy (identified as the use of insulin in this study) (33/85; 39%) compared with liberal glycaemic targets (18/86; 21%) (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.03; one trial, 171 women). CIs are wide suggesting imprecision and caution is required when interpreting the data. No other secondary maternal outcome data relevant to this review were reported. For the infant, there were no clear differences between the groups of women receiving strict and liberal glycaemic targets for macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.85, one trial, 171 babies); small-for-gestational age (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.63, one trial, 171 babies); birthweight (mean difference (MD) -92.00 g, 95% CI -241.97 to 57.97, one trial, 171 babies) or gestational age (MD -0.30 weeks, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.13, one trial, 171 babies). Adverse effects data were not reported. No other secondary neonatal outcomes relevant to this review were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review is based on a single study (involving 180 women) with an unclear risk of bias. The trial (which was only reported in a conference abstract) did not provide data for any of this review's primary outcomes but did provide data for a limited number of our secondary outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice for targets for glycaemic control for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and fetal health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations for maternal glycaemic control vary widely and are reliant on consensus given the lack of high-quality evidence.Further high-quality trials are needed, and these should compare different glycaemic targets for guiding treatment of women with GDM, assess both short-term and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies, include women's experiences and assess health services costs. Four studies are ongoing.

Antenatal breastfeeding education for increasing breastfeeding duration.

BACKGROUND: Breast milk is well recognised as the best food source for infants. The impact of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education for increasing BF initiation and duration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 1 March 2016, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 March 2016) and Scopus (January 1985 to 1 March 2016). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on the duration of BF. We included RCTs that only included antenatal interventions and excluded those that combined antenatal and intrapartum or postpartum BF education components. Cluster-randomised trials were included in this review. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes 24 studies (10,056 women). Twenty studies (9789 women) contribute data to analyses. Most studies took place in high-income countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. In the first five comparisons, we display the included trials according to type of intervention without pooling data. For the 'Summary of findings' we pooled data for a summary effect.Five included studies were cluster-randomised trials: all of these adjusted data and reported adjustments as odds ratios (OR). We have analysed the data using the generic inverse variance method and presented results as odds ratios, because we were unable to derive a cluster-adjusted risk ratio from the published cluster-trial. We acknowledge that the use of odds ratio prevents the pooling of these cluster trials in our main analyses. One method of BF education with standard (routine) careThere were no group differences for duration of any BF in days or weeks. There was no evidence that interventions improved the proportion of women with any BF or exclusive BF at three or six months. Single trials of different interventions were unable to show that education improved initiation of BF, apart from one small trial at high risk of attrition bias. Many trial results marginally favoured the intervention but had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. BF complications such as mastitis and other BF problems were similar in treatment arms in single trials reporting these outcomes. Multiple methods of BF education versus standard careFor all trials included in this comparison we have presented the cluster-adjusted odds ratios as reported in trial publications. One three-arm study found the intervention of BF booklet plus video plus Lactation Consultant versus standard care improved the proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.40; women = 159) and marginally at six months (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.76; women = 175). For the same trial, an intervention arm without a lactation consultant but with the BF booklet and video did not have the same effect on proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.05; women = 159) or six months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.70; women = 184). One study compared monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone message versus standard care and reported improvements in the proportion of women exclusively BF at both three and six months (three months OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; women = 390; six months OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.11; women = 390). One study found monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone messages improved initiation of BF over standard care (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.24; women = 380). BF education session versus standard care, pooled analyses for 'Summary of findings' (SoF)This comparison does not include cluster-randomised trials reporting adjusted odds ratios. We did not downgrade any evidence for trials' lack of blinding; no trial had adequate blinding of staff and participants. The SoF table presents risk ratios for all outcomes analysed. For proportion of women exclusively BF there is no evidence that antenatal BF education improved BF at three months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; women = 822; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence) or at six months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; women = 2161; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence). For proportion of women with any BF there were no group differences in BF at three (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; women = 654; studies = 2; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) or six months (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; women = 1636; studies = 4; I² = 61%; high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal BF education could improve initiation of BF (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; women = 3505; studies = 8; I² = 69%; high-quality evidence). Where we downgraded evidence this was due to small sample size or wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, or both.There was insufficient data for subgroup analysis of mother's occupation or education. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no conclusive evidence supporting any antenatal BF education for improving initiation of BF, proportion of women giving any BF or exclusively BF at three or six months or the duration of BF. There is an urgent need to conduct a high-quality, randomised controlled study to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of antenatal BF education, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Evidence in this review is primarily relevant to high-income settings.

Either 'a blessing in disguise', or 'I couldn't get help,': Australian and Aotearoa NZ women's experiences of early infant feeding during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: To manage the COVID-19 pandemic, public health restrictions and a rapid pivot to telehealth occurred. Peripartum services were significantly affected by a strained infrastructure. Decreased face to face access to health services and support affected maternal experiences and confidence internationally, yet little was reported with the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand context. AIM: To explore the early parenting and infant feeding experiences of new mothers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand in the context of a pandemic. METHODS: An interpretive qualitative approach and thematic analysis obtained an in-depth understanding of the experiences of 27 mothers who gave birth during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. FINDINGS: Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand women reported similar experiences, which varied contextually. Restrictions and requirements impacted favourably and unfavourably. Many women found the peace and space of social distancing an unexpected benefit and were proud of their achievements, whilst others shared feelings of isolation and distress. Some women felt they instinctively did what they needed to do. Experiences correlated with differing levels of self-efficacy. DISCUSSION: While many women relished the freedom from social obligations when faced with feeding challenges, there was general dissatisfaction with the level of support available. Care was fragmented, and health care needs were unmet, impacting feeding and parenting decisions and mental health. CONCLUSION: Access to timely and appropriate professional support is an important factor in establishing breastfeeding and developing parenting confidence, particularly in the context of a pandemic and should be a health policy priority.

Antenatal breastfeeding education for increasing breastfeeding duration.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding (BF) is well recognised as the best food for infants. The impact of antenatal BF education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education for increasing BF initiation and duration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (2 December 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 November 2011) and Scopus (January 1985 to 30 November 2011). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on duration of BF. We excluded RCTs that also included intrapartum or postpartum BF education. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies with 8506 women in the review and 16 studies involving 8262 women contributed data to the analyses. We did not carry out any meta-analysis because there was only one study for each comparison.Five studies compared a single method of BF education with routine care. Peer counselling significantly increased BF initiation.Three studies compared one form of BF education versus another. No intervention was significantly more effective than another intervention in increasing initiation or duration of BF.Seven studies compared multiple methods versus a single method of BF education. Combined BF educational interventions were not significantly better than a single intervention in initiating or increasing BF duration. However, in one trial a combined BF education significantly reduced nipple pain and trauma.One study compared different combinations of interventions. There was a marginally significant increase in exclusive BF at six months in women receiving a booklet plus video plus lactation consultation (LC) compared with the booklet plus video only.Two studies compared multiple methods of BF education versus routine care. The combination of BF booklet plus video plus LC was significantly better than routine care for exclusive BF at three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because there were significant methodological limitations and the observed effect sizes were small, it is not appropriate to recommend any specific antenatal BF education.There is an urgent need to conduct RCTs with adequate power to evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education.

Perceptions of Key Informant Health Professionals before implementing tighter glycaemic targets for women with gestational diabetes mellitus in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Tighter glycaemic targets may be of benefit for women with GDM and their infants. Barrier and enabler identification prior to implementation of tighter glycaemic targets for women with GDM may support a successful transition. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among Key Informant Health Professionals in ten hospitals in New Zealand. The survey assessed what was currently working using less tight glycaemic targets; what barriers and enablers were considered likely when introducing tighter glycaemic targets and whether these perceptions differed by health professional groups. RESULTS: Sixty Key Health Informant Health Professionals completed the survey. When using the lower glycaemic targets, participants considered that women with GDM found the targets easy to use and that collaborative collegial support was effective. No significant barriers were identified. Perceived enablers identified prior to implementation of tighter targets included receiving collegial support (40, 67%), attending education sessions (38, 63%), use of pocket prompt cards (31, 52%), availability of wall charts (25, 42%) and glycaemic target reminder stickers (24, 40%). For health professionals referring into the Diabetes in Pregnancy Service effective communication (50, 83%) was considered important. Perceived barriers were confusion over glycaemic targets use (27 (45%), not being informed of the glycaemic target change (31, 52%), non-involvement with multidisciplinary decisions (29, 48%) and increased difficulty of blood glucose control for women (48, 80%). Overall, barriers and enablers between Health Professional groups did not differ. DISCUSSION: Key Informant Health Professionals reported effective communication as a key perceived enabler and that woman would find it more difficult to control their blood glucose concentrations. Education sessions, multidisciplinary engagement, wall charts and stickers were considered effective to overcome the perceived barriers. Further research is needed to assess if the barriers perceived were realised and if the perceived enablers supported the implementation of the tighter glycaemic targets effectively.

Barriers to Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in New Zealand Following the Introduction of Universal Screening Recommendations.

Background: In 2014 the New Zealand Ministry of Health implemented a universal program of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnancy; however, data suggest that only half of all women are being screening according to the guidelines. This study aimed to explore women's views and experiences of GDM screening and to determine what the main screening barriers are. Methods: Eighteen women were recruited from the Waikato region of New Zealand, who were either pregnant (>28 weeks of gestation) or had given birth in the last 6 months. These women participated in a semi-structured interview about their experience of GDM screening and the transcripts were thematically analyzed. Of these women, 14 had been screened for gestational diabetes (three were screened late) and four had not been screened at all. Results: Multiple barriers to screening for GDM were identified, with two overarching themes of "confusion, concerns, and access to information for screening," and "challenges to accessing and completing the screening test." Specific barriers included the preference of risk-based assessments for GDM by their leading health professional (usually a registered midwife); negative perceptions of "sugar drink test"; needing time off work and childcare; travel costs for rural women; previous negative screening experiences; and reduced health literacy. Conclusion: There appear to be both woman-, midwife-, and system-level barriers to screening for GDM. While screening is ultimately a woman's choice, there does appear to be capacity to increase screening rates by improving awareness of the updated guidelines, and making the test environment more accessible and comfortable.

Midwifery awareness of diabetes in pregnancy screening guidelines in Aotearoa New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: Effective and timely management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requires early detection. However, screening rates have been shown to be relatively low in New Zealand, despite the introduction of national screening guidelines in 2014 which indicate that all pregnant women should be screened. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the awareness of the New Zealand Ministry of Health Diabetes in Pregnancy screening guidelines by New Zealand midwives. DESIGN: A 24-question online survey based upon the New Zealand screening guidelines was distributed via New Zealand midwifery social media groups to explore the awareness of New Zealand midwives with regard to screening for diabetes in pregnancy. Free text comments were also allowed, these were broadly categorized and reviewed. PARTICIPANTS: 174 registered midwives in Aotearoa New Zealand completed the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: All participants responded that they routinely offer glycated haemoglobin screening for detection of undiagnosed pre-gestational diabetes, and 92.9% identified that this should occur prior to 20 weeks gestation (as per the national guidelines). However, less than two thirds of midwives thought that all women should be screened for GDM, with 18.2% indicating they would only do this if immediate risk factors were present. There also appeared to be some confusion over the time period for screening for GDM with 22.9% indicating that this should occur later than the guideline-recommended timepoint of 24-28 weeks gestation. Participants who identified as Maori and community-based midwives were most likely to screen for GDM 'only if risk factors were present'. Participants practicing for more than 6 years, those aged 45-54 years, and midwives identifying as Maori were most likely to screen for GDM after 28 weeks (though these did not reach statistical significance). KEY CONCLUSIONS: The New Zealand Diabetes in Pregnancy screening guidelines do not appear to be well implemented in our sample group, particularly with regard to screening for GDM. This needs to be evaluated in a larger group of midwives, as education around the timeliness and importance of screening for all women may be required. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A lack of appropriate or timely screening for GDM may mean that women are not being diagnosed or managed appropriately, which in turn may have implications for both mother and child.

Predictors and impact of women's breastfeeding self-efficacy and postnatal care in the context of a pandemic in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of breastfeeding self-efficacy, postnatal care experiences, and there subsequent impact on breastfeeding outcomes in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A cross-sectional online survey collected data between August and October 2020 with recruitment via social media. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive analyses, and linear and logistic regression analysis related to the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form findings. Open text responses were analyzed using content analysis. FINDINGS: There were 1001 complete responses. Visitor restrictions impacted the woman's early parenting experience in both positive and negative ways. One third of participants stated their postnatal needs were not met with 82 stating that they had no postnatal care at all. During the first six weeks postnatal, 48.1% felt not very or not at all confident caring for their baby. Despite 94.3% of participants initiating breastfeeding, only 70% were exclusively breastfeeding at six weeks. The mean self-efficacy score was 49.98 suggesting the need for additional help, with first time mothers having a statistically significant lower score. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Sub-optimal postnatal care and support negatively influence breastfeeding self-efficacy. Women desired additional help during the COVID-19 pandemic inclusive of support and education to meet their postnatal needs and exclusively breastfeed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Women require appropriate and timely postnatal care and support to promote confidence in caring for baby and achieve their breastfeeding goals. Preferably this care should be provided face-to-face.

Analgesia for relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth.

BACKGROUND: Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping after birth pains associated with uterine involution. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of analgesia for relief of after birth pains following vaginal birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010) and the reference lists of trials and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia with placebo or analgesia with no treatment, for the relief of after birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: We have included 18 studies (involving 1498 women) in this review. However, only nine of the included studies (with 750 women) reported 24 comparisons of analgesia with other analgesia or placebo and had data that could be included in our meta-analyses. The majority of studies investigated pharmacological analgesics and these were grouped into classes for this review. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were significantly better than placebo at relieving pain from uterine involution as assessed by their summed pain intensity differences (SPID) (mean difference (MD) 4.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.87 to 5.82; three studies, 204 women) and summed pain relief scores (MD 5.94; 95% CI 3.83 to 8.01; three studies, 204 women). NSAIDS were compared with opioids in one small study of 23 women reporting SPID and summed pain relief and found no difference. A larger study of 127 women found NSAIDs to be significantly better than opioids at reducing pain intensity six hours following study intervention (MD -0.70; 95% CI -1.04 to -0.35). Opioids were compared with placebo in three studies that could be included in meta-analyses; one small study of 23 women reporting SPID and summed pain relief and found no difference. One study of 95 women found no difference in pain intensity six hours following the study intervention. A third study of 108 women found significantly more women in the placebo group reported no pain relief than women in the opioid group (risk ratio 0.10; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23). Aspirin was significantly better than paracetamol when pain intensity score was assessed six hours after study intervention (MD 0.85; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.41; one study 48 women) at relieving pain from uterine involution. Paracetamol was not better than placebo when pain intensity was assessed six hours after the study intervention in one study of 48 women. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) including aspirin were better than placebo at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs were better than paracetamol and paracetamol was not better than placebo, though numbers of participants for these comparisons were small. Data for opioids compared with NSAIDs and opioids compared with placebo were conflicting, with some measures showing similar effect and others indicating NSAIDs were better than opioids and opioids were not better than placebo. There were insufficient data to make conclusions regarding the effectiveness of opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution.The median year of publication of included studies was 1981; therefore more research is needed to assess the effectiveness of current pharmacological and non-pharmacological analgesia at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth.

Antenatal breastfeeding education for increasing breastfeeding duration.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding (BF) is well recognised as the best food for infants. The impact of antenatal BF education on the duration of BF has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education for increasing BF initiation and duration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (21 April 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2010) and SCOPUS (January 1985 to April 2010). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles. We updated the search of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register on 28 September 2011 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on duration of BF. We excluded RCTs that also included intrapartum or postpartum BF education. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 7131 women in the review and 14 studies involving 6932 women contributed data to the analyses. We did not do any meta-analysis because there was only one study for each comparison.Five studies compared a single method of BF education with routine care. Peer counselling significantly increased BF initiation.Three studies compared one form of BF education versus another. No intervention was significantly more effective than another intervention in increasing initiation or duration of BF.Seven studies compared multiple methods versus a single method of BF education. Combined BF educational interventions were not significantly better than a single intervention in initiating or increasing BF duration. However, in one trial a combined BF education significantly reduced nipple pain and trauma.One study compared different combinations of interventions. There was a marginally significant increase in exclusive BF at six months in women receiving a booklet plus video plus lactation consultation (LC) compared with the booklet plus video only.Two studies compared multiple methods of BF education versus routine care. The combination of BF booklet plus video plus LC was significantly better than routine care for exclusive BF at three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because there were significant methodological limitations and the observed effect sizes were small, it is not appropriate to recommend any antenatal BF education.There is an urgent need to conduct RCTs study with adequate power to evaluate the effectiveness of antenatal BF education.

Building capacity for evidence generation, synthesis and implementation to improve the care of mothers and babies in South East Asia: methods and design of the SEA-ORCHID Project using a logical framework approach.

BACKGROUND: Rates of maternal and perinatal mortality remain high in developing countries despite the existence of effective interventions. Efforts to strengthen evidence-based approaches to improve health in these settings are partly hindered by restricted access to the best available evidence, limited training in evidence-based practice and concerns about the relevance of existing evidence. South East Asia--Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing Countries (SEA-ORCHID) was a five-year project that aimed to determine whether a multifaceted intervention designed to strengthen the capacity for research synthesis, evidence-based care and knowledge implementation improved clinical practice and led to better health outcomes for mothers and babies. This paper describes the development and design of the SEA-ORCHID intervention plan using a logical framework approach. METHODS: SEA-ORCHID used a before-and-after design to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted tailored intervention at nine sites across Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia, supported by three centres in Australia. We used a logical framework approach to systematically prepare and summarise the project plan in a clear and logical way. The development and design of the SEA-ORCHID project was based around the three components of a logical framework (problem analysis, project plan and evaluation strategy). RESULTS: The SEA-ORCHID logical framework defined the project's goal and purpose (To improve the health of mothers and babies in South East Asia and To improve clinical practice in reproductive health in South East Asia), and outlined a series of project objectives and activities designed to achieve these. The logical framework also established outcome and process measures appropriate to each level of the project plan, and guided project work in each of the participating countries and hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Development of a logical framework in the SEA-ORCHID project enabled a reasoned, logical approach to the project design that ensured the project activities would achieve the desired outcomes and that the evaluation plan would assess both the process and outcome of the project. The logical framework was also valuable over the course of the project to facilitate communication, assess progress and build a shared understanding of the project activities, purpose and goal.

Improving capacity for evidence-based practice in South East Asia: evaluating the role of research fellowships in the SEA-ORCHID Project.

BACKGROUND: Fellowships are a component of many professional education programs. They provide opportunities to develop skills and competencies in an environment where time is protected and resources and technical support are more readily available. The SEA-ORCHID fellowships program aimed to increase capacity for evidence-based practice and research synthesis, and to encourage fellows to become leaders in these areas. METHODS: Fellows included doctors, nurses, midwives and librarians working in the maternal and neonatal areas of nine hospitals in South East Asia. Fellowships were undertaken in Australia and involved specific outputs related to evidence-based practice or research synthesis. Training and support was tailored according to the type of output and the fellow's experience and expertise. We evaluated the fellowships program quantitatively and qualitatively through written evaluations, interviews and follow-up of fellowship activities. RESULTS: During 2006-07, 23 fellows from Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines undertook short-term fellowships (median four weeks) in Australia. The main outputs were drafts of Cochrane systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and protocols for randomised trials, and training materials to support evidence-based practice. Protocols for Cochrane systematic reviews were more likely to be completed than other outcomes. The fellows identified several components that were critical to the program's overall success; these included protected time, tailored training, and access to technical expertise and resources. On returning home, fellows identified a lack of time and limited access to the internet and evidence-based resources as barriers to completing their outputs. The support of colleagues and senior staff was noted as an important enabler of progress, and research collaborators from other institutions and countries were also important sources of support. CONCLUSIONS: The SEA-ORCHID fellowships program provided protected time to work on an output which would facilitate evidence-based practice. While the fellows faced substantial barriers to completing their fellowship outputs once they returned home, these fellowships resulted in a greater understanding, enthusiasm and skills for evidence-based practice. The experience of the SEA-ORCHID fellowships program may be useful for other initiatives aiming to build capacity in evidence-based practice.

Music during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia for improving maternal and infant outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the benefits of music during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia to improve clinical and psychological outcomes for mothers and infants has not been established. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of music during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia for improving clinical and psychological outcomes for mothers and infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing music added to standard care during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia to standard care alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, Malinee Laopaiboon and Ruth Martis, independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias in included trials and extracted data. We analysed continuous outcomes using a mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: One trial involving 76 women who planned to have their babies delivered by caesarean section met the inclusion criteria, but data were available for only 64 women. This trial was of low quality with unclear allocation concealment and only a few main clinical outcomes reported for the women. The trial did not report any infant outcomes. It appears that music added to standard care during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia had some impact on pulse rate at the end of maternal contact with the neonate in the intra-operative period (MD -7.50 fewer beats per minute, 95% CI -14.08 to -0.92) and after completion of skin suture for the caesarean section (MD -7.37 fewer beats per minute, 95% CI -13.37 to -1.37). There was also an improvement in the birth satisfaction score (maximum possible score of 35) (MD of 3.38, 95%CI 1.59 to 5.17). Effects on other outcomes were either not significant or not reported in the one included trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that music during planned caesarean section under regional anaesthesia may improve pulse rate and birth satisfaction score. However, the magnitude of these benefits is small and the methodological quality of the one included trial is questionable. Therefore, the clinical significance of music is unclear. More research is needed to investigate the effects of music during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia on both maternal and infant outcomes, in various ethnic pregnant women, and with adequate sample sizes.

Survey of knowledge and perception on the access to evidence-based practice and clinical practice change among maternal and infant health practitioners in South East Asia.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) can provide appropriate care for women and their babies; however implementation of EBP requires health professionals to have access to knowledge, the ability to interpret health care information and then strategies to apply care. The aim of this survey was to assess current knowledge of evidence-based practice, information seeking practices, perceptions and potential enablers and barriers to clinical practice change among maternal and infant health practitioners in South East Asia. METHODS: Questionnaires about IT access for health information and evidence-based practice were administered during August to December 2005 to health care professionals working at the nine hospitals participating in the South East Asia Optimising Reproductive and Child Health in Developing countries (SEA-ORCHID) project in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and The Philippines. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 660 staff from six health professional groups. Overall, easy IT access for health care information was available to 46% of participants. However, over a fifth reported no IT access was available and over half of nurses and midwives never used IT health information. Evidence-based practice had been heard of by 58% but the majority did not understand the concept. The most frequent sites accessed were Google and PubMed. The Cochrane Library had been heard of by 47% of whom 51% had access although the majority did not use it or used it less than monthly. Only 27% had heard of the WHO Reproductive Health Library and 35% had been involved in a clinical practice change and were able to identify enablers and barriers to change. Only a third of participants had been actively involved in practice change with wide variation between the countries. Willingness to participate in professional development workshops on evidence-based practice was high. CONCLUSION: This survey has identified the need to improve IT access to health care information and health professionals' knowledge of evidence-based health care to assist in employing evidence base practice effectively.