Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations

Exploring the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of group-based pregnancy care and education: a pilot randomised controlled trial in Melbourne, Australia

BACKGROUND

In group-based pregnancy models, antenatal care and childbirth/parenting education are provided in groups of eight to 10 women, usually with two midwives, and six to eight sessions. Current evidence is inconclusive regarding potential benefit or harm. We aimed to explore the feasibility of implementing an adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

A two-arm pilot RCT was conducted in a tertiary maternity hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Women were randomly allocated to either the intervention to receive group-based antenatal care and education (group care) or to usual care, which included hospital-based midwife, caseload midwifery, team midwifery, or GP shared care. Participants were English-speaking, primiparous, low risk, and < 24 weeks gestation at booking.

DATA COLLECTION

feasibility measures throughout pilot, baseline questionnaire at recruitment, clinical outcome data from the medical record, and a telephone-administered questionnaire 6 weeks postpartum. A focus group explored midwives' views.

RESULTS

Seventy-four women were recruited from May to June 2017 (group care = 40, usual care = 34). Study uptake was 35%. Women allocated to group care rated their overall pregnancy care more highly (88% good/very good vs 77% in usual care). There was no evidence of harm related to group care. Overarching themes from the midwives were that group care helped 'build connections' and 'empower women'. All midwives would work in the model again and believed it should be expanded.

CONCLUSION

Group care was acceptable to both women and midwives with no evidence of harm. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of undertaking a large adequately powered RCT, important given the inconclusive evidence on clinical outcomes regarding the model, and its current relatively widespread implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12623000858695.

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

Group prenatal care successes, challenges, and frameworks for scaling up: a case study in adopting health care innovations

BACKGROUND

Group prenatal care enhances quality of care, improves outcomes, and lowers costs. However, this healthcare innovation is not widely available. Using a case-study approach, our objectives were to (1) examine organizational characteristics that support implementation of Expect With Me group prenatal care and (2) identify key factors influencing adoption and sustainability.

METHODS

We studied five clinical sites implementing group prenatal care, collecting qualitative data including focus group discussions with clinicians (n = 4 focus groups, 41 clinicians), key informant interviews (n = 9), and administrative data. We utilized a comparative qualitative case-study approach to characterize clinical sites and explain organizational traits that fostered implementation success. We characterized adopting and non-adopting (unable to sustain group prenatal care) sites in terms of fit for five criteria specified in the Framework for Transformational Change: (1) impetus to transform, (2) leadership commitment to quality, (3) improvement initiatives that engage staff, (4) alignment to achieve organization-wide goals, and (5) integration.

RESULTS

Two sites were classified as adopters and three as non-adopters based on duration, frequency, and consistency of group prenatal care implementation. Adopters had better fit with the five criteria for transformational change. Adopting organizations were more successful implementing group prenatal care due to alignment between organizational goals and resources, dedicated healthcare providers coordinating group care, space for group prenatal care sessions, and strong commitment from organization leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting sites were more likely to integrate group prenatal care when stakeholders achieved alignment across staff on organizational change goals, leadership buy-in, and committed institutional support and dedicated resources to sustain it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Expect With Me intervention's design and hypotheses were preregistered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02169024 . Date: June 19, 2014.

"I always felt like I wasn't supposed to be there". An international qualitative study of fathers' engagement in family healthcare during transition to fatherhood

OBJECTIVE

Engagement of fathers in family health services confers benefits for the health and wellbeing of the whole family. The childbirth continuum is traditionally considered a feminine event, however, commensurate with the changing paradigm of gender equity in family healthcare worldwide, the role of fathers is in transformation. The aim of the study is to explore father's perceptions and experiences of healthcare engagement during pregnancy and early infant care.

DESIGN

Qualitative free-text questions were embedded in a large multi-country, cross-sectional survey, to explored fathers' attendance, participation, and experience of health care during appointments with their pregnant partner and/or baby.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Expectant and new fathers were recruited through Prolific®, an international paid online survey platform.

FINDINGS

Qualitative responses (n=889) were provided by fathers from 28 countries, with experiences of a range of contexts and models of care; 46.8% of whose partners were pregnant and 53.2% had given birth since 2020. The findings suggest that although most fathers wanted to attend and participate in maternity and early parenting-related healthcare, multiple barriers were identified at the individual father, organisational context, and societal levels. Fathers reported negative social factors such as gender bias and restrictive gender norms as barriers to their healthcare engagement. In contrast, factors that enabled fathers to overcome barriers included the fathers' feelings of confidence in their partner's autonomy and decision-making skills, trusted professional relationships with clinicians, and clinicians with good interpersonal skills.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Multiple barriers restrict the participation of fathers in healthcare for childbearing and early parenting. Knowledge of these barriers can inform healthcare redesign to include more successful engagement strategies for fathers, to benefit fathers, mothers, and infants alike.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Health professionals consulting with the mother, father and infant triad are ideally placed to address the healthcare needs of both parents. Early engagement of fathers in family health care by use of inclusive interpersonal skills and the development of a trusted relationship has potential to improve paternal mental health, and may be associated with benefits for the health, wellbeing and safety of the whole family.

Group Care in the first 1000 days: implementation and process evaluation of contextually adapted antenatal and postnatal group care targeting diverse vulnerable populations in high-, middle- and low-resource settings

Background

Group care (GC) improves the quality of maternity care, stimulates women’s participation in their own care and facilitates growth of women’s social support networks. There is an urgent need to identify and disseminate the best mechanisms for implementing GC in ways that are feasible, context appropriate and sustainable. This protocol presents the aims and methods of an innovative implementation research project entitled Group Care in the first 1000 days (GC_1000), which addresses this need.

Aims

The aim of GC_1000 is to co-create and disseminate evidence-based implementation strategies and tools to support successful implementation and scale-up of GC in health systems throughout the world, with particular attention to the needs of ‘vulnerable’ populations.

Methods

By working through five inter-related work packages, each with specific tasks, objectives and deliverables, the global research team will systematically examine and document the implementation and scale-up processes of antenatal and postnatal GC in seven different countries. The GC_1000 project is grounded theoretically in the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), while the process evaluation is guided by ‘Realistic Evaluation’ principles. Data are gathered across all research phases and analysis at each stage is synthesized to develop Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome configurations.

Discussion

GC_1000 will generate evidence-based knowledge about the integration of complex interventions into diverse health care systems. The 4-year project also will pave the way for sustained implementation of GC, significantly benefitting populations with adverse pregnancy and birthing experiences as well as poor outcomes.

Implementation, Mechanisms and Context of the MAMAACT Intervention to Reduce Ethnic and Social Disparity in Stillbirth and Infant Health

The MAMAACT intervention aimed to address ethnic and social disparity in stillbirth and infant health by improving management of pregnancy complications. This process evaluation of the intervention was guided by the British Medical Research Council’s framework. We examined implementation through dose, reach, and fidelity, important mechanisms and the influence of contextual factors. The intervention included a six-hour training session for antenatal care (ANC) midwives in intercultural communication and cultural competence, two follow-up dialogue meetings, and health education materials (leaflet and app) on warning signs of severe pregnancy complications and how to respond for pregnant women. A mixed-methods approach was applied. Cross-sectional survey data and administrative data were used to assess intervention reach and dose. Qualitative data (records from dialogue meetings with midwives, participant observations and field notes from ANC visits, focus group interviews with midwives, and individual interviews with non-Western immigrant women) evaluated intervention fidelity, mechanisms, and contextual barriers. More than 80% of women received the MAMAACT leaflet and many found the content useful. The app was used more selectively. Midwives described being more aware and reflective in their communication with women from various cultural backgrounds. Organizational factors in ANC (time pressure, lack of flexibility in visits, poor interpreter services), barriers in women’s everyday life (lack of social network, previous negative experiences/lack of trust and domestic responsibilities), and habitual interaction patterns among midwives served as contextual barriers. The reach of the intervention was high and it was evaluated positively by both pregnant women and midwives. Organizational factors hindered changes towards more needs-based communication in ANC potentially hindering the intended mechanisms of the intervention. When interpreting the intervention effects, attention should be drawn to both organizational and interpersonal factors in the clinic as well as the pregnant women’s life situations.