Womens' opinions on antenatal care in developing countries: results of a study in Cuba, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Argentina

BACKGROUND: The results of a qualitative study carried out in four developing countries (Cuba, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Argentina) are presented. The study was conducted in the context of a randomised controlled trial to test the benefits of a new antenatal care protocol that reduced the number of visits to the doctor, rationalised the application of technology, and improved the provision of information to women in relation to the traditional protocol applied in each country. METHODS: Through focus groups discussions we were able to assess the concepts and expectations underlying women's evaluation of concepts and experiences of the care received in antenatal care clinics. 164 women participated in 24 focus groups discussion in all countries. RESULTS: Three areas are particularly addressed in this paper: a) concepts about pregnancy and health care, b) experience with health services and health providers, and c) opinions about the modified Antenatal Care (ANC) programme. In all three topics similarities were identified as well as particular opinions related to country specific social and cultural values. In general women have a positive view of the new ANC protocol, particularly regarding the information they receive. However, controversial issues emerged such as the reduction in the number of visits, particularly in Cuba where women are used to have 18 ANC visits in one pregnancy period. CONCLUSION: Recommendations to improve ANC services performance are being proposed. Any country interested in the application of a new ANC protocol should regard the opinion and acceptability of women towards changes

Mandatory second opinion to reduce rates of unnecessary caesarean sections in Latin America: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background Latin America has a high rate of caesarean sections. We tested the hypothesis that a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion, based on the best existing scientific evidence, reduces the hospital caesarean section rate by 25%, without increasing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Methods 36 hospitals in Argentina (18), Brazil (eight), Cuba (four), Guatemala (two), and Mexico (four), were randomly assigned to intervention or control in a matched pair design. All physicians in the intervention hospitals deciding a nonemergency caesarean section had to follow a policy of mandatory second opinion. The primary outcome was the overall caesarean section rate in the hospitals after a 6-month implementation period. We also assessed women's satisfaction with labour and delivery care and physicians' acceptance of the second opinion policy. Findings A total of 34 hospitals attending 149 276 deliveries were randomised and completed the protocol. The mandatory second opinion policy was associated with a small but significant reduction in rates of caesarean section (relative rate reduction 7.3%; 95% Cl 0.2-14.5), mostly in intrapartum sections (12.6%; 0.6-24.7). Other maternal and neonatal outcomes and women's perceptions and satisfaction with the process of care were similarly distributed between the groups. Interpretation In hospitals applying this policy of second opinion, 22 intrapartum caesarean sections could be prevented per 1000 deliveries, without affecting maternal or perinatal morbidity, and without affecting mothers' satisfaction with the care process.36394251934194

WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care

BACKGROUND: We undertook a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared the standard model of antenatal care with a new model that emphasises actions known to be effective in improving maternal or neonatal outcomes and has fewer clinic visits. METHODS: Clinics in Argentina, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand were randomly allocated to provide either the new model (27 clinics) or the standard model currently in use (26 clinics). All women presenting for antenatal care at these clinics over an average of 18 months were enrolled. Women enrolled in clinics offering the new model were classified on the basis of history of obstetric and clinical conditions. Those who did not require further specific assessment or treatment were offered the basic component of the new model, and those deemed at higher risk received the usual care for their conditions; however, all were included in the new-model group for the analyses, which were by intention to treat. The primary outcomes were low birthweight (<2500 g), pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, severe postpartum anaemia (<90 g/L haemoglobin), and treated urinary-tract infection. There was an assessment of quality of care and an economic evaluation. FINDINGS: Women attending clinics assigned the new model (n=12568) had a median of five visits compared with eight within the standard model (n=11958). More women in the new model than in the standard model were referred to higher levels of care (13.4% vs 7.3%), but rates of hospital admission, diagnosis, and length of stay were similar. The groups had similar rates of low birthweight (new model 7.68% vs standard model 7.14%; stratified rate difference 0.96 [95% CI -0.01 to 1.92]), postpartum anaemia (7.59% vs 8.67%; 0.32), and urinary-tract infection (5.95% vs 7.41%; -0.42 [-1.65 to 0.80]). For pre-eclampsia/eclampsia the rate was slightly higher in the new model (1.69% vs 1.38%; 0.21 [-0.25 to 0.67]). Adjustment by several confounding variables did not modify this pattern. There were negligible differences between groups for several secondary outcomes. Women and providers in both groups were, in general, satisfied with the care received, although some women assigned the new model expressed concern about the timing of visits. There was no cost increase, and in some settings the new model decreased cost. INTERPRETATIONS: Provision of routine antenatal care by the new model seems not to affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. It could be implemented without major resistance from women and providers and may reduce cost

The Magpie Trial: A randomised trial comparing magnesium sulphate with placebo for pre-eclampsia. Outcome for women at 2 years

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess long-term effects for women following the use of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia. Design: Assessment at 2-3 years after delivery for women recruited to the Magpie Trial (recruitment in 1998-2001, ISRCTN 86938761), which compared magnesium sulphate with placebo for pre-eclampsia. Setting: Follow up after discharge from hospital at 125 centres in 19 countries across five continents. Population: A total of 7927 women were randomised at the follow-up centres. Of these women, 2544 were not included for logistic reasons and 601 excluded (109 at a centre where <20% of women were contacted, 466 discharged without a surviving child and 26 opted out). Therefore, 4782 women were selected for follow-up, of whom 3375 (71%) were traced. Methods: Questionnaire assessment was administered largely by post or in a dedicated clinic. Interview assessment of selected women was performed. Main outcome measures: Death or serious morbidity potentially related to pre-eclampsia at follow up, other morbidity and use of health service resources. Results: Median time from delivery to follow up was 26 months (interquartile range 19-36). Fifty-eight of 1650 (3.5%) women allocated magnesium sulphate died or had serious morbidity potentially related to pre-eclampsia compared with 72 of 1725 (4.2%) women allocated placebo (relative risk 0.84, 95% CI 0.60-1.18). Conclusions: The reduction in the risk of eclampsia following prophylaxis with magnesium sulphate was not associated with an excess of death or disability for the women after 2 years. © RCOG 2006 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.Articl

The Magpie Trial: A randomised trial comparing magnesium sulphate with placebo for pre-eclampsia. Outcome for children at 18 months

Objective: To assess the long-term effects of in utero exposure to magnesium sulphate for children whose mothers had pre-eclampsia. Design: Assessment at 18 months of age for children whose mothers were recruited to the Magpie Trial (recruitment 1998-2001 ISRCTN 86938761), which compared magnesium sulphate with placebo. Setting: Follow-up of children born at 125 centres in 19 countries across five continents. Population: A total of 6922 children were born to women randomised before delivery at follow-up centres. Of these, 2271 were not included for logistic reasons and 168 were excluded (101 at a centre where <20% were contacted, 40 whose death or disability was due to a problem at conception or embryogenesis and 27 whose parent/s opted out). Therefore, 4483 children were included in follow-up, of whom 3283 (73%) were contacted. Methods: Assessment by questionnaire, with interview and neurodevelopmental testing of selected children. Main outcome measures: Death or neurosensory disability at age of 18 months. Results: Of those allocated magnesium sulphate, 245/1635 (15.0%) were dead or had neurosensory disability at 18 months compared with 233/1648 (14.1%) allocated placebo (relative risk [RR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.90-1.25), and of survivors, 19/1409 (1.3%) had neurosensory disability at 18 months compared with 27/1442 (1.9%) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40-1.29). There were no substantial differences in causes of death or in the risk of individual impairments or disabilities. Conclusions: The lower risk of eclampsia following prophylaxis with magnesium sulphate was not associated with a clear difference in the risk of death or disability for children at 18 months. © RCOG 2006 BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.Articl