Parents' experiences and satisfaction with care during the birth of their very preterm baby: a qualitative study

Objective: To assess parents' experiences and satisfaction with care during very preterm birth and to identify domains associated with positive and negative experiences of care. Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting: Three neonatal units in tertiary care hospitals in South-East England. Population: Thirty-two mothers and seven fathers who had a baby born before 32 weeks of gestation and spoke English well. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Results were analysed using thematic analysis. Main outcome measures Participants' experiences and satisfaction with care during the birth of their preterm baby. Results: Overall, 80% of participants were extremely satisfied with the care during the birth of their preterm baby, seven were generally satisfied but felt some things could be improved and one was dissatisfied. Four key determinants of experiences of care were identified: staff professionalism, which included information and explanation, being calm in a crisis, appearing confident and in control, and conversely not listening to the woman; staff empathy, which included caring and emotional support, and encouragement and reassurance; involvement of the father; and birth environment. Conclusions: Although the determinants of experiences of care are generally consistent with previous research on term births, unique factors to preterm birth were identified. These were the importance of the staff appearing calm during the birth, and the staff portraying confidence and taking control during the birth. Women valued being listened to, and both they and their partners valued staff helping fathers to feel involved during the birth

Measuring parents’ experiences and satisfaction with care during very preterm birth: a questionnaire development study

Objective: To develop a questionnaire to assess parents’ experiences and satisfaction with care during very preterm birth. Design: Questionnaire development. Setting: Parents whose babies had been cared for at five tertiary neonatal units in England. Population: A total of 145 women who gave birth before 32 weeksof gestation, and 85 of their partners. Methods: A 30-item questionnaire was developed on the basis of qualitative interviews with parents of very preterm babies, a literature review and discussion with relevant experts. The questionnaire was posted to a second group of parents, and its reliability and validity were explored. Main outcome measures The Preterm Birth Experience and Satisfaction Scale (P-BESS) was correlated with two global questions measuring satisfaction with care during the birth. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s a. Results: Parents of 458 babies were invited to take part and 147 (32%) responded. Two women and 22 partners were excluded or ineligible, leaving 145 women and 85 partners. Factor analysis produced three clear dimensions: Staff professionalism and empathy, Information and explanations, and Confidence in staff. The total scale and three subscales showed high reliability. Strong positive correlations were found between the questionnaire scales and the two global questions, indicating convergent validity. For women whose partners were present at the birth, a fourth factor was identified ‘Partner Involvement’. Conclusions: The P-BESS appears to be a valid measure of satisfaction with care during very preterm birth

What are women stressed about after birth?

Background Having a baby is associated with a variety of stressors, change, and adjustment. This study aimed to identify what women find stressful during the early postpartum period in contemporary Western society. Methods Women (n = 148) 6‐12 weeks postpartum wrote anonymously about a situation they found stressful as part of the Health after Birth Trial (HABiT) of expressive writing. Transcripts were analyzed for categories of stressors and cross‐cutting themes. Results Five categories of stressors were identified. Stressors in pregnancy, labor, and the early postpartum period (49.3%) included physical and emotional difficulties, and insensitive treatment by health professionals. Stressors related to adjusting to life with a baby (35.8%) included difficulties coping with a new baby, parenting, juggling responsibilities, changes to physical health, and loneliness. Stressors related to the baby's health (32.4%) included infant digestive problems, acute health problems, long‐term impact, and neonatal intensive care unit experiences. Stressors related to breastfeeding (23.7%) included pressure to breastfeed, feeling like a ‘bad mum’ for not breastfeeding, or wanting to breastfeed and not being able to. Other stressors related to changing relationships (18.2%): with their partner, children, and other family members. Cross‐cutting themes that emerged in different stressor categories were women making negative self‐appraisals (eg, a bad mum, failure), feeling guilty, and lack of support from others. Discussion Our findings emphasize the importance of exploring stressors and psychological well‐being with women to provide support, help women's adjustment postpartum, and ensure interventions are offered when appropriate

Self-hypnosis for intrapartum pain management in pregnant nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness

Objective: (Primary) To establish the effect of antenatal group self-hypnosis for nulliparous women on intra-partum epidural use. Design: Multi-method randomised control trial (RCT). Setting: Three NHS Trusts. Population: Nulliparous women not planning elective caesarean, without medication for hypertension and without psychological illness. Methods: Randomisation at 28–32 weeks’ gestation to usual care, or to usual care plus brief self-hypnosis training (two × 90-minute groups at around 32 and 35 weeks’ gestation; daily audio self-hypnosis CD). Follow up at 2 and 6 weeks postnatal. Main outcome measures: Primary: epidural analgesia. Secondary: associated clinical and psychological outcomes; cost analysis. Results: Six hundred and eighty women were randomised. There was no statistically significant difference in epidural use: 27.9% (intervention), 30.3% (control), odds ratio (OR) 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64–1.24], or in 27 of 29 pre-specified secondary clinical and psychological outcomes. Women in the intervention group had lower actual than anticipated levels of fear and anxiety between baseline and 2 weeks post natal (anxiety: mean difference −0.72, 95% CI −1.16 to −0.28, P = 0.001); fear (mean difference −0.62, 95% CI −1.08 to −0.16, P = 0.009) [Correction added on 7 July 2015, after first online publication: ‘Mean difference’ replaced ‘Odds ratio (OR)’ in the preceding sentence.]. Postnatal response rates were 67% overall at 2 weeks. The additional cost in the intervention arm per woman was £4.83 (CI −£257.93 to £267.59). Conclusions: Allocation to two-third-trimester group self-hypnosis training sessions did not significantly reduce intra-partum epidural analgesia use or a range of other clinical and psychological variables. The impact of women's anxiety and fear about childbirth needs further investigation

Improving quality of care and outcome at very preterm birth: the Preterm Birth research programme, including the Cord pilot RCT

BACKGROUND: Being born very premature (i.e. before 32 weeks’ gestation) has an impact on survival and quality of life. Improving care at birth may improve outcomes and parents’ experiences. OBJECTIVES: To improve the quality of care and outcomes following very preterm birth. DESIGN: We used mixed methods, including a James Lind Alliance prioritisation, a systematic review, a framework synthesis, a comparative review, qualitative studies, development of a questionnaire tool and a medical device (a neonatal resuscitation trolley), a survey of practice, a randomised trial and a protocol for a prospective meta-analysis using individual participant data. SETTING: For the prioritisation, this included people affected by preterm birth and health-care practitioners in the UK relevant to preterm birth. The qualitative work on preterm birth and the development of the questionnaire involved parents of infants born at three maternity hospitals in southern England. The medical device was developed at Liverpool Women’s Hospital. The survey of practice involved UK neonatal units. The randomised trial was conducted at eight UK tertiary maternity hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: For prioritisation, 26 organisations and 386 individuals; for the interviews and questionnaire tool, 32 mothers and seven fathers who had a baby born before 32 weeks’ gestation for interviews evaluating the trolley, 30 people who had experienced it being used at the birth of their baby (19 mothers, 10 partners and 1 grandmother) and 20 clinicians who were present when it was being used; for the trial, 261 women expected to have a live birth before 32 weeks’ gestation, and their 276 babies. INTERVENTIONS: Providing neonatal care at very preterm birth beside the mother, and with the umbilical cord intact; timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Research priorities for preterm birth; feasibility and acceptability of the trolley; feasibility of a randomised trial, death and intraventricular haemorrhage. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review of Cochrane reviews (umbrella review); framework synthesis of ethics aspects of consent, with conceptual framework to inform selection criteria for empirical and analytical studies. The comparative review included studies using a questionnaire to assess satisfaction with care during childbirth, and provided psychometric information. RESULTS: Our prioritisation identified 104 research topics for preterm birth, with the top 30 ranked. An ethnographic analysis of decision-making during this process suggested ways that it might be improved. Qualitative interviews with parents about their experiences of very preterm birth identified two differences with term births: the importance of the staff appearing calm and of staff taking control. Following a comparative review, this led to the development of a questionnaire to assess parents’ views of care during very preterm birth. A systematic overview summarised evidence for delivery room neonatal care and revealed significant evidence gaps. The framework synthesis explored ethics issues in consent for trials involving sick or preterm infants, concluding that no existing process is ideal and identifying three important gaps. This led to the development of a two-stage consent pathway (oral assent followed by written consent), subsequently evaluated in our randomised trial. Our survey of practice for care at the time of birth showed variation in approaches to cord clamping, and that no hospitals were providing neonatal care with the cord intact. We showed that neonatal care could be provided beside the mother using either the mobile neonatal resuscitation trolley we developed or existing equipment. Qualitative interviews suggested that neonatal care beside the mother is valued by parents and acceptable to clinicians. Our pilot randomised trial compared cord clamping after 2 minutes and initial neonatal care, if needed, with the cord intact, with clamping within 20 seconds and initial neonatal care after clamping. This study demonstrated feasibility of a large UK randomised trial. Of 135 infants allocated to cord clamping ≥ 2 minutes, 7 (5.2%) died and, of 135 allocated to cord clamping ≤ 20 seconds, 15 (11.1%) died (risk difference –5.9%, 95% confidence interval –12.4% to 0.6%). Of live births, 43 out of 134 (32%) allocated to cord clamping ≥ 2 minutes had intraventricular haemorrhage compared with 47 out of 132 (36%) allocated to cord clamping ≤ 20 seconds (risk difference –3.5%, 95% CI –14.9% to 7.8%). LIMITATIONS: Small sample for the qualitative interviews about preterm birth, single-centre evaluation of neonatal care beside the mother, and a pilot trial. CONCLUSIONS: Our programme of research has improved understanding of parent experiences of very preterm birth, and informed clinical guidelines and the research agenda. Our two-stage consent pathway is recommended for intrapartum clinical research trials. Our pilot trial will contribute to the individual participant data meta-analysis, results of which will guide design of future trials. FUTURE WORK: Research in preterm birth should take account of the top priorities. Further evaluation of neonatal care beside the mother is merited, and future trial of alternative policies for management of cord clamping should take account of the meta-analysis. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003038 and CRD42013004405. In addition, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21456601. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

Background The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be started at home with the subsequent active phase of labour happening either at home or in a healthcare facility (hospital, birth centre, midwifery‐led unit). More commonly, home induction starts in a healthcare facility, then the woman goes home to await the start of labour. Inpatient induction takes place in a healthcare facility where the woman stays while awaiting the start of labour. Objectives To assess the effects on neonatal and maternal outcomes of third trimester home induction of labour compared with inpatient induction using the same method of induction. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 January 2020)), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which home and inpatient settings for induction have been compared. We included conference abstracts but excluded quasi‐randomised trials and cross‐over studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed study reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. GRADE assessments were checked by a third review author. Main results We included seven RCTs, six of which provided data on 1610 women and their babies. Studies were undertaken between 1998 and 2015, and all were in high‐ or upper‐middle income countries. Most women were induced for post dates. Three studies reported government funding, one reported no funding and three did not report on their funding source. Most GRADE assessments gave very low‐certainty evidence, downgrading mostly for high risk of bias and serious imprecision. 1. Home compared to inpatient induction with vaginal prostaglandin E (PGE) (two RCTs, 1028 women and babies; 1022 providing data). Although women's satisfaction may be slightly better in home settings, the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.02 to 0.34, 1 study, 399 women), very low‐certainty evidence. There may be little or no difference between home and inpatient induction for other primary outcomes, with all evidence being very low certainty: ‐ spontaneous vaginal birth (average risk ratio (RR) [aRR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21, 2 studies, 1022 women, random‐effects method); ‐ uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.50, 1 study, 821 women); ‐ caesarean birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28, 2 studies, 1022 women); ‐ neonatal infection (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82, 1 study, 821 babies); ‐ admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.90, 2 studies, 1022 babies). Studies did not report serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 2. Home compared to inpatient induction with controlled release PGE (one RCT, 299 women and babies providing data). There was no information on whether the questionnaire on women's satisfaction with care used a validated instrument, but the findings presented showed no overall difference in scores. We found little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes, all also being very low‐certainty evidence: ‐ spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14, 1 study, 299 women); ‐ uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98, 1 study, 299 women); ‐ caesarean births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, 1 study, 299 women); ‐ admission to NICU (RR 1.38, 0.57 to 3.34, 1 study, 299 babies). The study did not report on neonatal infection nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 3. Home compared to inpatient induction with balloon or Foley catheter (four RCTs; three studies, 289 women and babies providing data). It was again unclear whether questionnaires reporting women's experiences/satisfaction with care were validated instruments, with one study (48 women, 69% response rate) finding women were similarly satisfied. Home inductions may reduce the number of caesarean births, but the data are also compatible with a slight increase and are of very low‐certainty (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, 2 studies, 159 women). There was little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes with all being very low‐certainty evidence: ‐ spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98, 1 study, 48 women): ‐ uterine hyperstimulation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.79, 1 study, 48 women); ‐ admission to NICU (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.86, 2 studies, 159 babies). There were no serious neonatal infections nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality in the one study (involving 48 babies) assessing these outcomes. Authors' conclusions Data on the effectiveness, safety and women's experiences of home versus inpatient induction of labour are limited and of very low‐certainty. Given that serious adverse events are likely to be extremely rare, the safety data are more likely to come from very large observational cohort studies rather than relatively small RCTs

Using expressive writing as an intervention to improve postnatal wellbeing

Background: There is a lack of evidence on effective universal self-help interventions for women to improve wellbeing after birth (NICE, 2014). Disclosing personal thoughts and feelings through expressive writing is associated with improved physical and psychological health in many other groups [Sexton & Pennebaker, 2009] so may be helpful after birth. Aim and Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the effect of expressive writing on postnatal psychological and physical health. Method: Women (N = 839) were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: ‘expressive writing’, ‘control writing’ or ‘treatment as usual’. Women completed measures of psychological and physical health at baseline and one month later. After baseline measures were completed women in the writing conditions undertook either an expressive writing task about something they were finding stressful, or a control writing task where they described a room. Results: Women rated their stress as significantly lower after the expressive writing task. However, there were no differences between women in the expressive writing, control writing and normal care groups in health outcomes at 1 and 6 months. Overall, women’s physical health significantly improved over time, whereas mental health showed no change (mood, anxiety, depression) and mental health related quality of life worsened. Threshold analysis identified a trend for women with poor mental health at baseline benefitting more from expressive writing but this was not significant. Interpretation: Writing tasks are not effective as a universal intervention for postnatal women. However, for women who have mental health symptoms at baseline, taking time to focus and write about stress may improve mood. Conclusions: Further research is needed to examine whether it might be effective as a targeted intervention for women with poor mental health

A new conceptual framework for maternal morbidity

© 2018 World Health Organization; licensed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Background: Globally, there is greater awareness of the plight of women who have complications associated with pregnancy or childbirth and who may continue to experience long-term problems. In addition, the health of women and their ability to perform economic and social functions are central to the Sustainable Development Goals. Methods: In 2012, WHO began an initiative to standardize the definition, conceptualization, and assessment of maternal morbidity. The culmination of this work was a conceptual framework: the Maternal Morbidity Measurement (MMM) Framework. Results: The framework underscores the broad ramifications of maternal morbidity and highlights what types of measurement are needed to capture what matters to women, service providers, and policy makers. Using examples from the literature, we explain the framework's principles and its most important elements. Conclusions: We express the need for comprehensive research and detailed longitudinal studies of women from early pregnancy to the extended postpartum period to understand how health and symptoms and signs of ill health change. With respect to interventions, there may be gaps in healthcare provision for women with chronic conditions and who are about to conceive. Women also require continuity of care at the primary care level beyond the customary 6 weeks postpartum

Evaluation of compliance and outcomes of a management protocol for massive postpartum hemorrhage at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Massive postpartum hemorrhage is a life threatening obstetric emergency. In order to prevent the complications associated with this condition, an organized and step-wise management protocol should be immediately initiated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An evidence based management protocol for massive postpartum hemorrhage was implemented at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan after an audit in 2005. We sought to evaluate the compliance and outcomes associated with this management protocol 3 years after its implementation. A review of all deliveries with massive primary postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss ≥ 1500 ml) between January, 2008 to December, 2008 was carried out. Information regarding mortality, mode of delivery, possible cause of postpartum hemorrhage and medical or surgical intervention was collected. The estimation of blood loss was made via subjective and objective assessment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During 2008, massive postpartum hemorrhage occurred in 0.64% cases (26/4,052). No deaths were reported. The mean blood loss was 2431 ± 1817 ml (range: 1500 - 9000 ml). Emergency cesarean section was the most common mode of delivery (13/26; 50%) while uterine atony was the most common cause of massive postpartum hemorrhage (14/26; 54%). B-lynch suture (24%) and balloon tamponade (60%) were used more commonly as compared to our previously reported experience. Cesarean hysterectomy was performed in 3 cases (12%) for control of massive postpartum hemorrhage. More than 80% compliance was observed in 8 out of 10 steps of the management protocol. Initiation of blood transfusion at 1500 ml blood loss (89%) and overall documentation of management (92%) were favorably observed in most cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This report details our experience with the practical implementation of a management protocol for massive postpartum hemorrhage at a tertiary care hospital in a developing country. With the exception of arterial embolization, relatively newer, simpler and potentially safer techniques are now being employed for the management of massive postpartum hemorrhage at our institution. Particular attention should be paid to the documentation of the management steps while ensuring a stricter adherence to the formulated protocols and guidelines in order to further ameliorate patient outcomes in emergency obstetrical practice. More audits like the one we performed are important to recognize and rectify any deficiencies in obstetrical practice in developing countries. Dissemination of the same is pivotal to enable an open discourse on the improvement of existing obstetrical strategies.</p

A framework for healthcare interventions to address maternal morbidity

© 2018 World Health Organization; licensed by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. The maternal health agenda is undergoing a paradigm shift from preventing maternal deaths to promoting women's health and wellness. A critical focus of this trajectory includes addressing maternal morbidity and the increasing burden of chronic and noncommunicable diseases (NCD) among pregnant women. The WHO convened the Maternal Morbidity Working Group (MMWG) to improve the scientific basis for defining, measuring, and monitoring maternal morbidity. Based on the MMWG's work, we propose paradigms for conceptualizing maternal health and related interventions, and call for greater integration between maternal health and NCD programs. This integration can be synergistic, given the links between chronic conditions, morbidity in pregnancy, and long-term health. Pregnancy should be viewed as a window of opportunity into the current and future health of women, and offers critical entry points for women who may otherwise not seek or have access to care for chronic conditions. Maternal health services should move beyond the focus on emergency obstetric care, to a broader approach that encompasses preventive and early interventions, and integration with existing services. Health systems need to respond by prioritizing funding for developing integrated health programs, and workforce strengthening. The MMWG's efforts have highlighted the changing landscape of maternal health, and the need to expand the narrow focus of maternal health, moving beyond surviving to thriving