Understanding the language barriers to translating informed consent documents for maternal health trials in Zambia: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Providing comprehensible information is essential to the process of valid informed consent. Recruitment materials designed by sponsoring institutions in English-speaking, high-income countries are commonly translated for use in global health studies in other countries; however, key concepts are often missed, misunderstood or 'lost in translation'. The aim of this study was to explore the language barriers to informed consent, focusing on the challenges of translating recruitment materials for maternal health studies into Zambian languages. DESIGN: We used a qualitative approach, which incorporated a multistakeholder workshop (11 participants), in-depth interviews with researchers and translators (8 participants) and two community-based focus groups with volunteers from community advisory boards (20 participants). Content analysis was used to identify terms commonly occurring in recruitment materials prior to the workshop. The framework analysis approach was used to analyse interview data, and a simple inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse focus group data. SETTING: The study was based in Lusaka, Zambia. RESULTS: The workshop highlighted difficulties in translating research terms and pregnancy-specific terms, as well as widespread concern that current templates are too long, use overly formal language and are designed with little input from local teams. Framework analysis of in-depth interviews identified barriers to participant understanding relating to design and development of recruitment materials, language, local context and communication styles. Focus group participants confirmed these findings and suggested potential solutions to ensure the language and content of recruitment materials can be better understood. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the way in which recruitment materials are currently designed, translated and disseminated may not enable potential trial participants to fully understand the information provided. Instead of using overly complex institutional templates, recruitment materials should be created through an iterative and interactive process that provides truly comprehensible information in a format appropriate for its intended participants.

Planned delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia in low-income and middle-income countries (CRADLE-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality. Evidence regarding interventions in a low-income or middle-income setting is scarce. We aimed to evaluate whether planned delivery between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks' gestation can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity without increasing perinatal complications in India and Zambia. METHODS: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management in women with pre-eclampsia from 34+ 0 to 36+ 6 weeks' gestation. Participants were recruited from nine hospitals and referral facilities in India and Zambia and randomly assigned to planned delivery or expectant management in a 1:1 ratio by a secure web-based randomisation facility hosted by MedSciNet. Randomisation was stratified by centre and minimised by parity, single-fetus pregnancy or multi-fetal pregnancy, and gestational age. The primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal mortality or morbidity with a superiority hypothesis. The primary perinatal outcome was a composite of one or more of: stillbirth, neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission of more than 48 h with a non-inferiority hypothesis (margin of 10% difference). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, 10672137. The trial is closed to recruitment and all follow-up has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2019, and March 31, 2022, 565 women were enrolled. 284 women (282 women and 301 babies analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 281 women (280 women and 300 babies analysed) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the primary maternal outcome was not significantly different in the planned delivery group (154 [55%]) compared with the expectant management group (168 [60%]; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·79 to 1·05). The incidence of the primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was non-inferior in the planned delivery group (58 [19%]) compared with the expectant management group (67 [22%]; adjusted risk difference -3·39%, 90% CI -8·67 to 1·90; non-inferiority p<0·0001). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There was a significant reduction in severe maternal hypertension (adjusted RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·99) and stillbirth (0·25, 0·07 to 0·87) associated with planned delivery. There were 12 serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 21 in the expectant management group. INTERPRETATION: Clinicians can safely offer planned delivery to women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, in a low-income or middle-income country. Planned delivery reduces stillbirth, with no increase in neonatal unit admissions or neonatal morbidity and reduces the risk of severe maternal hypertension. Planned delivery from 34 weeks' gestation should therefore be considered as an intervention to reduce pre-eclampsia associated mortality and morbidity in these settings. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Indian Department of Biotechnology.

Planned early delivery for late preterm pre-eclampsia in a low- and middle-income setting: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity globally. Planned delivery between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes but is yet to be evaluated in a low and middle-income setting. Prior to designing a randomised controlled trial to evaluate this in India and Zambia, we carried out a 6-month feasibility study in order to better understand the proposed trial environment and guide development of our intervention. METHODS: We used mixed methods to understand the disease burden and current management of pre-eclampsia at our proposed trial sites and explore the acceptability of the intervention. We undertook a case notes review of women with pre-eclampsia who delivered at the proposed trial sites over a 3-month period, alongside facilitating focus group discussions with women and partners and conducting semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse audit data. A thematic framework analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: Case notes data (n = 326) showed that in our settings, 19.5% (n = 44) of women with pre-eclampsia delivering beyond 34 weeks experienced an adverse outcome. In women delivering between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks, there were similar numbers of antenatal stillbirths [n = 3 (3.3%)] and neonatal deaths [n = 3 (3.4%)]; median infant birthweight was 2.2 kg and 1.9 kg in Zambia and India respectively. Lived experience of women and healthcare providers was an important facilitator to the proposed intervention, highlighting the serious consequences of pre-eclampsia. A preference for spontaneous labour and limited neonatal resources were identified as potential barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a clear need to evaluate the intervention and highlighted several challenges relating to trial context that enabled us to adapt our protocol and design an acceptable intervention. Our study demonstrates the importance of assessing feasibility when developing complex interventions, particularly in a low-resource setting. Additionally, it provides a unique insight into the management of pre-eclampsia at our trial settings and an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs underpinning the acceptability of planned early delivery.

Pre-eclampsia is a complication of pregnancy and is one of the major causes of pregnancy-related death and serious illness for women and babies around the world. Most of these deaths occur in lower income countries in Africa and Asia. Signs of pre-eclampsia include high blood pressure and protein in the urine. It is unpredictable and may affect different organs within the woman, leading to seizures, stroke and even death if not well managed. It can also affect the baby's growth and in severe cases lead to stillbirth. We know that birth of the baby (and placenta) is the only cure for pre-eclampsia. Currently, it is recommended by the World Health Organisation that all women with pre-eclampsia are offered planned early birth once they reach 37 weeks of pregnancy, unless they develop severe complications needing intervention sooner than this. However, research from higher income countries has shown that planned early birth from 34 weeks of pregnancy may reduce serious complications in the woman, without causing harm to the baby. We are designing a clinical trial to find out whether, in women with pre-eclampsia between 34 and 37 weeks of pregnancy, it is better to offer planned early birth or to offer close monitoring until either they reach 37 weeks, or a complication develops requiring emergency intervention. Before designing this trial, we carried out a study in order to establish whether the main trial would be possible, and acceptable to the local community, at our potential trial sites in India and Zambia.

Planned early delivery versus expectant management to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes in pre-eclampsia in a low- and middle-income setting: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (CRADLE-4 Trial).

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication characterised by high blood pressure and multi-organ dysfunction in the mother. It is a leading contributor to maternal and perinatal mortality, with 99% of these deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Whilst clear guidelines exist for management of early-onset (< 34 weeks) and term (≥ 37 weeks) disease, the optimal timing of delivery in pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks is less clear. In a high-income setting, delivery may improve maternal outcomes without detriment to the baby, but this intervention is yet to be evaluated in LMIC. METHODS: The CRADLE-4 Trial is a non-masked, randomised controlled trial comparing planned early delivery (initiation of delivery within 48 h of randomisation) with routine care (expectant management) in women with pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks' gestation in India and Zambia. The primary objective is to establish whether a policy of planned early delivery can reduce adverse maternal outcomes, without increasing severe neonatal morbidity. DISCUSSION: The World Health Organization recommends delivery for all women with pre-eclampsia from 37 weeks onwards, based on evidence showing clear maternal benefit without increased neonatal risk. Before 34 weeks, watchful waiting is preferred, with delivery recommended only when there is severe maternal or fetal compromise, due to the neonatal risks associated with early preterm delivery. Currently, there is a lack of guidance for clinicians managing women with pre-eclampsia between 34+ 0 and 36+ 6 weeks. Early delivery benefits the mother but may increase the need for neonatal unit admission in the infant (albeit without serious morbidity at this gestation). On the other hand, waiting to deliver may increase the risk of stillbirth, fetal growth restriction and hypoxic brain injury in the neonate as a result of severe maternal complications. This is especially true for LMIC where there is a higher prevalence of adverse events. The balance of risks and benefits therefore needs to be carefully assessed before making firm recommendations. This is the first trial evaluating the optimal timing of delivery in pre-eclampsia in LMIC, where resources and disease burden are considerably different. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 10672137 . Registered on 28 November 2019.

Exploring the effect of implementation and context on a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial of a vital sign triage device in routine maternity care in low-resource settings.

BACKGROUND: Interventions aimed at reducing maternal mortality are increasingly complex. Understanding how complex interventions are delivered, to whom, and how they work is key in ensuring their rapid scale-up. We delivered a vital signs triage intervention into routine maternity care in eight low- and middle-income countries with the aim of reducing a composite outcome of morbidity and mortality. This was a pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial. In this study, we present the results of the mixed-methods process evaluation. The aim was to describe implementation and local context and integrate results to determine whether differences in the effect of the intervention across sites could be explained. METHODS: The duration and content of implementation, uptake of the intervention and its impact on clinical management were recorded. These were integrated with interviews (n = 36) and focus groups (n = 19) at 3 months and 6-9 months after implementation. In order to determine the effect of implementation on effectiveness, measures were ranked and averaged across implementation domains to create a composite implementation strength score and then correlated with the primary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 61.1% (n = 2747) of health care providers were trained in the intervention (range 16.5% to 89.2%) over a mean of 10.8 days. Uptake and acceptability of the intervention was good. All clusters demonstrated improved availability of vital signs equipment. There was an increase in the proportion of women having their blood pressure measured in pregnancy following the intervention (79.2% vs. 97.6%; OR 1.30 (1.29-1.31)) and no significant change in referral rates (3.7% vs. 4.4% OR 0.89; (0.39-2.05)). Availability of resources and acceptable, effective referral systems influenced health care provider interaction with the intervention. There was no correlation between process measures within or between domains, or between the composite score and the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This process evaluation has successfully described the quantity and quality of implementation. Variation in implementation and context did not explain differences in the effectiveness of the intervention on maternal mortality and morbidity. We suggest future trials should prioritise in-depth evaluation of local context and clinical pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ISRCTN41244132 . Registered on 2 Feb 2016.