Optimizing cord management for each preterm baby - Challenges of collating individual participant data and recommendations for future collaborative research.

The optimal cord management strategy at birth for each preterm baby is still unknown, despite more than 100 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken on this question. To address this, we brought together all RCTs examining cord management strategies at preterm birth in the iCOMP (individual participant data on COrd Management at Preterm birth) Collaboration, to perform an individual participant data network meta-analysis. In this paper, we describe the trials and tribulations around obtaining individual participant data to resolve controversies around cord clamping, and we derive key recommendations for future collaborative research in perinatology. To reliably answer outstanding questions, future cord management research needs to be collaborative and coordinated, by aligning core protocol elements, ensuring quality and reporting standards are met, and carefully considering and reporting on vulnerable sub-populations. The iCOMP Collaboration is an example of the power of collaboration to address priority research questions, and ultimately improve neonatal outcomes worldwide.

Feasibility study protocol of a pragmatic, randomised controlled pilot trial: membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy-the MILO Study.

BACKGROUND: Post-term pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal complications, respiratory distress and trauma to the neonate. Amniotic membrane sweeping has been recommended as a simple procedure to promote the spontaneous onset of labour. However, despite its widespread use, there is an absence of evidence on (a) its effectiveness and (b) its optimal timing and frequency. The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. We will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed trial interventions to clinicians and women (through focus group interviews). METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded factorial design. Pregnant women with a live, singleton foetus ≥ 38 weeks gestation; cephalic presentation; longitudinal lie; intact membranes; English speaking and ≥ 18 years of age will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to membrane sweep versus no membrane sweep. Women allocated randomly to a sweep will then be randomised further (factorial component) to early (from 39 weeks) versus late (from 40 weeks) sweep commencement and a single versus weekly sweep. The proposed feasibility study consists of four work packages, i.e. (1) a multicentre, pilot randomised trial; (2) a health economic analysis; (3) a qualitative study; and (4) a study within the host trial (a SWAT). Outcomes to be collected include recruitment and retention rates, compliance with protocol, randomisation and allocation processes, attrition rates and cost-effectiveness. Focus groups will be held with women and clinicians to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed intervention, study procedures and perceived barriers and enablers to recruitment. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. Results will inform whether and how the design of the definitive trial as originally envisaged should be delivered or adapted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04307199 . Registered on 12 March 2020.

Top research priorities for preterm birth: results of a prioritisation partnership between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: We report a process to identify and prioritise research questions in preterm birth that are most important to people affected by preterm birth and healthcare practitioners in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. METHODS: Using consensus development methods established by the James Lind Alliance, unanswered research questions were identified using an online survey, a paper survey distributed in NHS preterm birth clinics and neonatal units, and through searching published systematic reviews and guidelines. Prioritisation of these questions was by online voting, with paper copies at the same NHS clinics and units, followed by a decision-making workshop of people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Overall 26 organisations participated. Three hundred and eighty six people responded to the survey, and 636 systematic reviews and 12 clinical guidelines were inspected for research recommendations. From this, a list of 122 uncertainties about the effects of treatment was collated: 70 from the survey, 28 from systematic reviews, and 24 from guidelines. After removing 18 duplicates, the 104 remaining questions went to a public online vote on the top 10. Five hundred and seven people voted; 231 (45%) people affected by preterm birth, 216 (43%) health professionals, and 55 (11%) affected by preterm birth who were also a health professional. Although the top priority was the same for all types of voter, there was variation in how other questions were ranked. Following review by the Steering Group, the top 30 questions were then taken to the prioritisation workshop. A list of top 15 questions was agreed, but with some clear differences in priorities between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: These research questions prioritised by a partnership process between service users and healthcare professionals should inform the decisions of those who plan to fund research. Priorities of people affected by preterm birth were sometimes different from those of healthcare professionals, and future priority setting partnerships should consider reporting these separately, as well as in total.

Evaluation of expressive writing for postpartum health: a randomised controlled trial.

Pregnancy, birth and adjusting to a new baby is a potentially stressful time that can negatively affect the health of women. There is some evidence that expressive writing can have positive effects on psychological and physical health, particularly during stressful periods. The current study aimed to evaluate whether expressive writing would improve women's postpartum health. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with three conditions: expressive writing (n = 188), a control writing task (n = 213), or normal care (n = 163). Measures of psychological health, physical health and quality of life were measured at baseline (6-12 weeks postpartum), 1 and 6 months later. Ratings of stress were taken before and after the expressive writing task. Intent-to-treat analyses showed no significant differences between women in the expressive writing, control writing and normal care groups on measures of physical health, anxiety, depression, mood or quality of life at 1 and 6 months. Uptake and adherence to the writing tasks was low. However, women in the expressive writing group rated their stress as significantly reduced after completing the task. Cost analysis suggest women who did expressive writing had the lowest costs in terms of healthcare service use and lowest cost per unit of improvement in quality of life. Results suggest expressive writing is not effective as a universal intervention for all women 6-12 weeks postpartum. Future research should examine expressive writing as a targeted intervention for women in high-risk groups, such as those with mild or moderate depression, and further examine cost-effectiveness.Clinical trial registration number ISRCTN58399513 www.isrctn.com.

Feasibility and acceptability of expressive writing with postpartum women: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy, birth and adjusting to a new baby is a potentially stressful time that can negatively affect women's mental and physical health. Expressive writing, where people write about a stressful event for at least 15 min on three consecutive days, has been associated with improved health in some groups but it is not clear whether it is feasible and acceptable for use with postpartum women. This study therefore examined the feasibility and acceptability of expressive writing for postpartum women as part of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: The Health After Birth Trial (HABiT) was an RCT evaluating expressive writing for postpartum women which included measures of feasibility and acceptability. At 6 to 12 weeks after birth 854 women were randomised to expressive writing, a control writing task or normal care, and outcome measures of health were measured at baseline, one month later and six months later. Feasibility was measured by recruitment, attrition, and adherence to the intervention. Quantitative and qualitative measures of acceptability of the materials and the task were completed six months after the intervention. RESULTS: Recruitment was low (10.7% of those invited to participate) and the recruited sample was from a restricted sociodemographic range. Attrition was high, increased as the study progressed (35.8% at baseline, 57.5% at one month, and 68.1% at six months) and was higher in the writing groups than in the normal care group. Women complied with instructions to write expressively or not, but adherence to the instruction to write for 15 min per day for three days was low (Expressive writing: 29.3%; Control writing: 23.5%). Acceptability measures showed that women who wrote expressively rated the materials/task both more positively and more negatively than those in the control writing group, and qualitative comments revealed that women enjoyed the writing and/or found it helpful even when it was upsetting. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of offering expressive writing as a universal self-help intervention to all postpartum women 6 to 12 weeks after birth in the HABiT trial was low, but the expressive writing intervention was acceptable to the majority of women who completed it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58399513, 10/09/2013.

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the analytical (theoretical/philosophical) research.

BACKGROUND: Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet, approaching the parents of these infants at such a difficult time raises challenges to obtaining valid informed consent for such research. In this study, we asked, What light does the analytical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to obtaining informed consent in perinatal clinical trials? METHODS: In a systematic search, we identified 30 studies. We began our analysis by applying philosophical frameworks, which were then refined as concepts emerged from the analytical studies, to present a coherent picture of a broad literature. RESULTS: Between them, the studies addressed four themes. The first three were the ethical basis for parental informed consent for neonatal and/or perinatal research, the validity of parental consent in this context, and the range of possible options in methods for gaining consent. The last was the issue of risk and the possibility of a double-standard or asymmetry in the current approaches to the requirement for consent for research and consent for clinical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In addressing these issues, the analysed studies showed that, whilst there are a variety of possible defences for seeking parental 'consent' to neonatal and/or perinatal clinical trials, these are all consistent with the strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give (or decline) consent for such research. So far as the method of obtaining consent is concerned, none of the existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory, and there are philosophical reasons for supposing that at least some parents will fail to give valid consent in a neonatal context. Furthermore, in giving parental 'consent' in a perinatal context, parents are authorising infant participation, not giving 'proxy consent'. Finally, there are reasons for giving weight to both parental 'consent' and the infant's best interests in both research and clinical treatment. However, there are also reasons to treat these factors differently in the two contexts, and this may be partly due to the differing relevance of risk in each case. A significant gap is the lack of any detailed discussion of a process of emergency and/or urgent 'assent', in which parents assent or refuse their baby's participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to continuing participation and follow-up.

A European multi-language initiative to make the general population aware of independent clinical research: the European Communication on Research Awareness Need project.

BACKGROUND: The ECRAN (European Communication on Research Awareness Needs) project was initiated in 2012, with support from the European Commission, to improve public knowledge about the importance of independent, multinational, clinical trials in Europe. METHODS: Participants in the ECRAN consortium included clinicians and methodologists directly involved in clinical trials; researchers working in partnership with the public and patients; representatives of patients; and experts in science communication. We searched for, and evaluated, relevant existing materials and developed additional materials and tools, making them freely available under a Creative Commons licence. RESULTS: The principal communication materials developed were: 1. A website ( http://ecranproject.eu ) in six languages, including a Media centre section to help journalists to disseminate information about the ECRAN project 2. An animated film about clinical trials, dubbed in the 23 official languages of the European Community, and an interactive tutorial 3. An inventory of resources, available in 23 languages, searchable by topic, author, and media type 4. Two educational games for young people, developed in six languages 5. Testing Treatments interactive in a dozen languages, including five official European Community languages 6. An interactive tutorial slide presentation testing viewers' knowledge about clinical trials CONCLUSIONS: Over a 2-year project, our multidisciplinary and multinational consortium was able to produce, and make freely available in many languages, new materials to promote public knowledge about the importance of independent and international clinical trials. Sustained funding for the ECRAN information platform could help to promote successful recruitment to independent clinical trials supported through the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network.

Cord pilot trial - immediate versus deferred cord clamping for very preterm birth (before 32 weeks gestation): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most important single determinant of adverse outcome in the United Kingdom; one in every 70 babies (1.4%) is born before 32 weeks (very preterm), yet these births account for over half of infant deaths.Deferring cord clamping allows blood flow between baby and placenta to continue for a short time. This often leads to increased neonatal blood volume at birth and may allow longer for transition to the neonatal circulation. Optimal timing for clamping the cord remains uncertain, however. The Cochrane Review suggests that deferring umbilical cord clamping for preterm births may improve outcome, but larger studies reporting substantive outcomes and with long-term follow-up are needed. Studies of the physiology of placental transfusion suggest that flow in the umbilical cord at very preterm birth may continue for several minutes. This pilot trial aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised trial comparing immediate and deferred cord clamping in the UK. METHODS/DESIGN: Women are eligible for the trial if they are expected to have a live birth before 32 weeks gestation. Exclusion criteria are known monochorionic twins or clinical evidence of twin-twin transfusion syndrome, triplet or higher order multiple pregnancy, and known major congenital malformation. The interventions will be cord clamping within 20 seconds compared with cord clamping after at least two minutes. For births with cord clamping after at least two minutes, initial neonatal care is at the bedside. For the pilot trial, outcomes include measures of recruitment, compliance with the intervention, retention of participants and data quality for the clinical outcomes.Information about the trial is available to women during their antenatal care. Women considered likely to have a very preterm birth are approached for informed consent. Randomisation is close to the time of birth. Follow-up for the women is for one year, and for the children to two years of age (corrected for gestation at birth). The target sample size is 100 to 110 mother-infant pairs recruited over 12 months at eight sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21456601, registered on 28 February 2013.

Public involvement in setting a national research agenda: a mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: : A growing body of literature supports the inclusion of patients, other service users, and the wider public in guiding health technology assessment, particularly in relation to interventions and outcomes for evaluative studies. OBJECTIVE: : To describe the input and influence of public involvement in setting the agenda for a national research program. METHODS: : The data source was the commissioned research of the UK National Health Service Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program, 1999-2004. The study consisted of a mixed methods evaluation employing document analyses, key informant interviews, and structured non-participant observations. Routine management records of the HTA program were examined for public influence on research topics. The nature and influence of contributions from the public were compared with those of other experts. Structured observations of advisory panel meetings investigated how discussion and decisions related to patient and public perspectives and how panel members responded to public input to the program. Semi-structured interviews gathered the perceptions of staff and advisory panel members. RESULTS: : The public provided unique contributions both as external experts and as panel members. The value and influence of many of these contributions were acknowledged by staff and panel members. Input from external public experts was least where recruitment was passive (through a website) and where contributions were required in a research question format that may have been unfamiliar to non-researchers. However, public influence at this stage was at least of the same order as that of professional suggestions. Input was most where recruitment effort was greater, where contributions could be made in an open format, and where the responsibility for integrating these into a research question format lay with research program staff. Public experts contributing at this stage often influenced research plans. Their contributions resulted in some important changes, including making patient and carer perspectives explicit, changing the focus of the research, adding new outcomes, refuting the need for the planned research, providing up-to-date prevalence data, and providing plain English background text. At their best, public members of advisory panels were seen as providing useful comment and encouraging greater sensitivity to patient perspectives among other panel members. At their worst, they were seen as lobbying for particular patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: : Public involvement has influenced decisions about research commissioned by the HTA program with only relatively minor changes to the procedures and resources for managing the program required. This results in outcomes research that incorporates patient and public preferences and values, and that is freely available for evidence-informed health services.

A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of a multidimensional conceptual framework capable of drawing out the implications for policy and practice of what is known about public involvement in research agenda setting. BACKGROUND: Public involvement in research is growing in western and developing countries. There is a need to learn from collective experience and a diverse literature of research, policy documents and reflective reports. METHODS: Systematic searches of research literature, policy and lay networks identified reports of public involvement in research agenda setting. Framework analysis, previously described for primary research, was used to develop the framework, which was then applied to reports of public involvement in order to analyse and compare these. FINDINGS: The conceptual framework takes into account the people involved; the people initiating the involvement; the degree of public involvement; the forum for exchange; and methods used for decision making. It also considers context (in terms of the research focus and the historical, geographical or institutional setting), and theoretical basis. CONCLUSIONS: The framework facilitates learning across diverse experiences, whether reported in policy documents, reflections or formal research, to generate a policy- and practice-relevant overview. A further advantage is that it identifies gaps in the literature which need to be filled in order to inform future research about public involvement.

Use of recombinant activated factor VII in primary postpartum hemorrhage: the Northern European registry 2000-2004.

OBJECTIVE: To collect data from nine European countries for cases of obstetric hemorrhage between 2000 and 2004 in which recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) was used. METHODS: The cases were identified through national surveys. Standardized case report forms included sociodemographic details, past medical and obstetric history, and details of the progress and management of labor in which the postpartum hemorrhage occurred. Clinicians were asked to describe subjectively the effect of rFVIIa administration using two mutually exclusive categories: 1) bleeding reduced or 2) bleeding unchanged or worse. RESULTS: A total of 113 forms were returned (88%) with 97 (86%) classified as treatment, and 16 (14%) as "secondary prophylaxis." Clinicians noted improvements after a single dose for 80% of women in the treatment group, and for 75% in the secondary "prophylaxis" group. However, rFVIIa failed in 15 cases (13.8%). Few serious adverse events were noted related to rFVIIa administration; there were four cases of thromboembolism, one myocardial infarction, and one skin rash. CONCLUSION: Clinical reports and hematologic data suggest improvement for more than 80% of women after rFVIIa administration and few adverse effects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Achieving sustainable quality in maternity services - using audit of incontinence and dyspareunia to identify shortfalls in meeting standards.

BACKGROUND: Some complications of childbirth (for example, faecal incontinence) are a source of social embarrassment for women, and are often under reported. Therefore, it was felt important to determine levels of complications (against established standards) and to consider obstetric measures aimed at reducing them. METHODS: Clinical information was collected on 1036 primiparous women delivering at North and South Staffordshire Acute and Community Trusts over a 5-month period in 1997. A questionnaire was sent to 970 women which included self-assessment of levels of incontinence and dyspareunia prior to pregnancy, at 6 weeks post delivery and 9 to 14 months post delivery. RESULTS: The response rate was 48%(470/970). Relatively high levels of obstetric interventions were found. In addition, the rates of instrumental deliveries differed between the two hospitals. The highest rates of postnatal symptoms had occurred at 6 weeks, but for many women problems were still present at the time of the survey. At 9-14 months high rates of dyspareunia (29%(102/347)) and urinary incontinence (35%(133/382)) were reported. Seventeen women (4%) complained of faecal incontinence at this time. Similar rates of urinary incontinence and dyspareunia were seen regardless of mode of delivery. CONCLUSION: Further work should be undertaken to reduce the obstetric interventions, especially instrumental deliveries. Improvements in a number of areas of care should be undertaken, including improved patient information, improved professional communication and improved professional recognition and management of third degree tears. It is likely that these measures would lead to a reduction in incontinence and dyspareunia after childbirth.