Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternity services in Europe ::a mixed methods systematic review protocol

Objective: This review will synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in access to and the provision of maternity services in Europe. The review will also consider health care professionals’ experiences in providing maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Introduction: Governments and maternity services have introduced various protective sanitary and organizational measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and protect the global population, including health care professionals. Since March 2020, the number of publications on this topic has soared, yet little is known about the effect of the pandemic and the accompanying measures on access to and the provision of maternity care in Europe. Inclusion criteria: The review will consider quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies on the impact of COVID-19 on European maternity services. For the quantitative component, the review will consider studies evaluating maternity services outcomes across all types of maternity care settings. For the qualitative component, the review will consider studies exploring maternity health care providers’ experiences and perceptions of the impact of the pandemic on care provided to women and their babies. Methods: Six bibliographic databases will be searched for published and unpublished studies since March 2020. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will follow JBI's segregated mixed methods approach. The quantitative component will be adapted to follow the JBI requirements for systematic reviews of etiology and risk. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD4202128387

Exploring health care professionals’ experiences and knowledge of woman-centred care in a university hospital

Inspired by the six quality-of-care goals developed by the Institute of Medicine, woman-centred care (WCC) as model of care is used in maternity services as it gives an emphasis on the woman as an individual and not her status as a patient. Bringing stronger attention to women’s needs and values, is proven to have clear benefits for perinatal outcomes, but fails to be known or recognised by healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and implemented. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aimed to explore HCPs definitions of WCC and identify the degree of agreement and knowledge regarding perinatal indicators when a WCC model of care is implemented. The quantitative part was carried using a self-administered questionnaire with perinatal indicators identified from the literature. Semi-structured interviews were realized using a purposive sample of 15 HCPs and an interview grid inspired by Leap’s WCC model. The study was conducted in the maternity of a university hospital in Frenchspeaking part of Switzerland. Out of 318 HCPs working with mothers and their newborns, 51% had already heard of WCC without being familiar with Leap’s model. The HCPs were aware of the positive perinatal care outcomes when WCC was implemented: women’s satisfaction (99.2%), health promotion (97.6%), HCP’s job satisfaction (93.2%) and positive feelings about their work (85.6%), which were strongly emphasised in the interviews. The respondents reported institutional difficulties in implementing the model such as administrative overload and lack of time. The positive outcomes of WCC on spontaneous deliveries and improved neonatal adaptation were known by most HCPs (63.4% and 59.9%, respectively). However, fewer than half of the HCPs highlighted the model’s positive effects on analgesia and episiotomies or its financial benefits. Knowledge of quality-of-care outcomes (i.e women’s satisfaction, positive impact on practice. . .) was prevalent among most of HCPs. Without adhering to a common definition and without a specific model for consensus, most providers have integrated some aspects of WCC into their practice. However, specific perinatal indicators remain largely unknown, which may hinder the implementation of WCC

Stakeholders’ perspectives on clinical trial acceptability and approach to consent within a limited timeframe: a mixed methods study

Objectives The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.Design A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.Setting Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.Participants Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.Results Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.Conclusion Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.Trial registration number ISRCTN11746266