Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes of late- and postterm pregnancies in advanced maternal age : A national cohort study

© 2020 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Perinatal death beyond 41 weeks pregnancy : An evaluation of causes and substandard care factors as identified in perinatal audit in the Netherlands

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Development of the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool for maternity care (CHAT-maternity-care): participatory action research

Abstract Background Limited health literacy in (expectant) parents is associated with adverse health outcomes. Maternity care providers often experience difficulties assessing (expectant) parents’ level of health literacy. The aim was to develop, evaluate, and iteratively adapt a conversational tool that supports maternity care providers in estimating (expectant) parents’ health literacy. Methods In this participatory action research study, we developed a conversational tool for estimating the health literacy of (expectant) parents based on the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool for general care, which in turn was based on the Health Literacy Questionnaire. We used a thorough iterative process including different maternity care providers, (expectant) parents, and a panel of experts. This expert panel comprised representatives from knowledge institutions, professional associations, and care providers with whom midwives and maternity care assistants work closely. Testing, evaluation and adjustment took place in consecutive rounds and was conducted in the Netherlands between 2019 and 2022. Results The conversational tool ‘CHAT-maternity-care’ covers four key domains: (1) supportive relationship with care providers; (2) supportive relationship within parents’ personal network; (3) health information access and comprehension; (4) current health behaviour and health promotion. Each domain contains multiple example questions and example observations. Participants contributed to make the example questions and example observations accessible and usable for daily practice. The CHAT-maternity-care supports maternity care providers in estimating (expectant) parents’ health literacy during routine conversations with them, increased maternity care providers’ awareness of health literacy and helped them to identify where attention is necessary regarding (expectant) parents’ health literacy. Conclusions The CHAT-maternity-care is a promising conversational tool to estimate (expectant) parents’ health literacy. It covers the relevant constructs of health literacy from both the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool and Health Literacy Questionnaire, applied to maternity care. A preliminary evaluation of the use revealed positive feedback. Further testing and evaluation of the CHAT-maternity-care is required with a larger and more diverse population, including more (expectant) parents, to determine the effectiveness, perceived barriers, and perceived facilitators for implementation

Additional file 1 of Development of the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool for maternity care (CHAT-maternity-care): participatory action research

Supplementary Material

Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background The risk of perinatal death and severe neonatal morbidity increases gradually after 41 weeks of pregnancy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed if induction of labour (IOL) in uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks will improve perinatal outcomes. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) on this subject. Methods and findings We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO on February 21, 2020 for RCTs comparing IOL at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. Individual participant data (IPD) were sought from eligible RCTs. Primary outcome was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Additional outcomes included neonatal admission, mode of delivery, perineal lacerations, and postpartum haemorrhage. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted for parity (nulliparous/multiparous), maternal age (<35/≥35 years), and body mass index (BMI) (<30/≥30). Aggregate data meta-analysis (MA) was performed to include data from RCTs for which IPD was not available. From 89 full-text articles, we identified three eligible RCTs (n = 5,161), and two contributed with IPD (n = 4,561). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding age, parity, BMI, and higher level of education. IOL resulted overall in a decrease of severe adverse perinatal outcome (0.4% [10/2,281] versus 1.0% [23/2,280]; relative risk [RR] 0.43 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 to 0.91], p-value 0.027, risk difference [RD] -57/10,000 [95% CI -106/10,000 to -8/10,000], I2 0%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 175 (95% CI 94 to 1,267). Perinatal deaths occurred in one (<0.1%) versus eight (0.4%) pregnancies (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.21 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.78], p-value 0.019, RD -31/10,000, [95% CI -56/10,000 to -5/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 326, [95% CI 177 to 2,014]) and admission to a neonatal care unit ?4 days occurred in 1.1% (24/2,280) versus 1.9% (46/2,273), (RR 0.52 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.85], p-value 0.009, RD -97/10,000 [95% CI -169/10,000 to -26/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 103 [95% CI 59 to 385]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery (10.5% versus 10.7%; RR 0.98, [95% CI 0.83 to 1.16], p-value 0.81) nor in other important perinatal, delivery, and maternal outcomes. MA on aggregate data showed similar results. Prespecified subgroup analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01 for interaction) for parity, but not for maternal age or BMI. The risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome was decreased for nulliparous women in the IOL group (0.3% [4/1,219] versus 1.6% [20/1,264]; RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.60], p-value 0.004, RD -127/10,000, [95% CI -204/10,000 to -50/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 79 [95% CI 49 to 201]) but not for multiparous women (0.6% [6/1,219] versus 0.3% [3/1,264]; RR 1.59 [95% CI 0.15 to 17.30], p-value 0.35, RD 27/10,000, [95% CI -29/10,000 to 84/10,000], I2 55%). A limitation of this IPD-MA was the risk of overestimation of the effect on perinatal mortality due to early stopping of the largest included trial for safety reasons after the advice of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Furthermore, only two RCTs were eligible for the IPDMA; thus, the possibility to assess severe adverse neonatal outcomes with few events was limited. Conclusions In this study, we found that, overall, IOL at 41 weeks improved perinatal outcome compared with expectant management until 42 weeks without increasing the cesarean delivery rate. This benefit is shown only in nulliparous women, whereas for multiparous women, the incidence of mortality and morbidity was too low to demonstrate any effect. The magnitude of risk reduction of perinatal mortality remains uncertain. Women with pregnancies approaching 41 weeks should be informed on the risk differences according to parity so that they are able to make an informed choice for IOL at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks. Study Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020163174