Codesign and refinement of an optimised antenatal education session to better inform women and prepare them for labour and birth

Objective: Our objective was to codesign, implement, evaluate acceptability and refine an optimised antenatal education session to improve birth preparedness. Design: There were four distinct phases: codesign (focus groups and codesign workshops with parents and staff); implementation of intervention; evaluation (interviews, questionnaires, structured feedback forms) and systematic refinement. Setting: The study was set in a single maternity unit with approximately 5500 births annually. Participants: Postnatal and antenatal women/birthing people and birth partners were invited to participate in the intervention, and midwives were invited to deliver it. Both groups participated in feedback. Outcome measures: We report on whether the optimised session is deliverable, acceptable, meets the needs of women/birthing people and partners, and explain how the intervention was refined with input from parents, clinicians and researchers. Results: The codesign was undertaken by 35 women, partners and clinicians. Five midwives were trained and delivered 19 antenatal education (ACE) sessions to 142 women and 94 partners. 121 women and 33 birth partners completed the feedback questionnaire. Women/birthing people (79%) and birth partners (82%) felt more prepared after the class with most participants finding the content very helpful or helpful. Women/birthing people perceived classes were more useful and engaging than their partners. Interviews with 21 parents, a midwife focus group and a structured feedback form resulted in 38 recommended changes: 22 by parents, 5 by midwives and 11 by both. Suggested changes have been incorporated in the training resources to achieve an optimised intervention. Conclusions: Engaging stakeholders (women and staff) in codesigning an evidence-informed curriculum resulted in an antenatal class designed to improve preparedness for birth, including assisted birth, that is acceptable to women and their birthing partners, and has been refined to address feedback and is deliverable within National Health Service resource constraints. A nationally mandated antenatal education curriculum is needed to ensure parents receive high-quality antenatal education that targets birth preparedness

Codesign and refinement of an optimised antenatal education session to better inform women and prepare them for labour and birth

Objective Our objective was to codesign, implement, evaluate acceptability and refine an optimised antenatal education session to improve birth preparedness.Design There were four distinct phases: codesign (focus groups and codesign workshops with parents and staff); implementation of intervention; evaluation (interviews, questionnaires, structured feedback forms) and systematic refinement.Setting The study was set in a single maternity unit with approximately 5500 births annually.Participants Postnatal and antenatal women/birthing people and birth partners were invited to participate in the intervention, and midwives were invited to deliver it. Both groups participated in feedback.Outcome measuresWe report on whether the optimised session is deliverable, acceptable, meets the needs of women/birthing people and partners, and explain how the intervention was refined with input from parents, clinicians and researchers.Results The codesign was undertaken by 35 women, partners and clinicians. Five midwives were trained and delivered 19 antenatal education (ACE) sessions to 142 women and 94 partners. 121 women and 33 birth partners completed the feedback questionnaire. Women/birthing people (79%) and birth partners (82%) felt more prepared after the class with most participants finding the content very helpful or helpful. Women/birthing people perceived classes were more useful and engaging than their partners. Interviews with 21 parents, a midwife focus group and a structured feedback form resulted in 38 recommended changes: 22 by parents, 5 by midwives and 11 by both. Suggested changes have been incorporated in the training resources to achieve an optimised intervention.Conclusions Engaging stakeholders (women and staff) in codesigning an evidence-informed curriculum resulted in an antenatal class designed to improve preparedness for birth, including assisted birth, that is acceptable to women and their birthing partners, and has been refined to address feedback and is deliverable within National Health Service resource constraints. A nationally mandated antenatal education curriculum is needed to ensure parents receive high-quality antenatal education that targets birth preparedness

Codesign and refinement of an optimised antenatal education session to better inform women and prepare them for labour and birth.

ObjectiveOur objective was to codesign, implement, evaluate acceptability and refine an optimised antenatal education session to improve birth preparedness.DesignThere were four distinct phases: codesign (focus groups and codesign workshops with parents and staff); implementation of intervention; evaluation (interviews, questionnaires, structured feedback forms) and systematic refinement.SettingThe study was set in a single maternity unit with approximately 5500 births annually.ParticipantsPostnatal and antenatal women/birthing people and birth partners were invited to participate in the intervention, and midwives were invited to deliver it. Both groups participated in feedback.Outcome measuresWe report on whether the optimised session is deliverable, acceptable, meets the needs of women/birthing people and partners, and explain how the intervention was refined with input from parents, clinicians and researchers.ResultsThe codesign was undertaken by 35 women, partners and clinicians. Five midwives were trained and delivered 19 antenatal education (ACE) sessions to 142 women and 94 partners. 121 women and 33 birth partners completed the feedback questionnaire. Women/birthing people (79%) and birth partners (82%) felt more prepared after the class with most participants finding the content very helpful or helpful. Women/birthing people perceived classes were more useful and engaging than their partners. Interviews with 21 parents, a midwife focus group and a structured feedback form resulted in 38 recommended changes: 22 by parents, 5 by midwives and 11 by both. Suggested changes have been incorporated in the training resources to achieve an optimised intervention.ConclusionsEngaging stakeholders (women and staff) in codesigning an evidence-informed curriculum resulted in an antenatal class designed to improve preparedness for birth, including assisted birth, that is acceptable to women and their birthing partners, and has been refined to address feedback and is deliverable within National Health Service resource constraints. A nationally mandated antenatal education curriculum is needed to ensure parents receive high-quality antenatal education that targets birth preparedness

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons