Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy with minimal therapist support for anxious children and adolescents: predictors of response.

BACKGROUND: In general, Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy (iCBT) produces significant reductions in child and adolescent anxiety, but a proportion of participants continue to show clinical levels of anxiety after treatment. It is important to identify demographic, clinical, and family factors that predict who is most likely to benefit from iCBT in order to better tailor treatment to individual needs. METHODS: Participants were 175 young people (7-18 years) with an anxiety disorder, and at least one of their parents, who completed an iCBT intervention with minimal therapist support. Multilevel modeling (MLM) examined predictors of response to iCBT as measured by the slope for changes in the primary outcome measures of child- and parent-reported anxiety scores, from pretreatment, to 12-weeks, 6-month, and 12-month follow-ups, controlling for pretreatment total clinician severity ratings of all anxiety diagnoses. RESULTS: Child age, gender, father age, parental education, parental mental health, parenting style, and family adaptability and cohesion did not significantly predict changes in anxiety in the multivariate analyses. For child-reported anxiety, greater reductions were predicted by a separation anxiety disorder diagnosis (SEP) and elevated depression, with lower reductions predicted by poor couple relationship quality. For parent-reported child anxiety, greater reductions were predicted by higher pretreatment total CSRs, SEP, and lower family income, with lower reductions for children of older mothers. Irrespective of these predictors of change, children in general showed reductions in anxiety to within the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, children responded well to iCBT irrespective of the demographic, clinical, and family factors examined here. Poor couple relationship quality and older mother age were risk factors for less positive response to iCBT in terms of reductions in anxiety symptoms although still to within the normal range.

How does MobileMums work? Mediators of a physical activity intervention.

Objectives: To establish which Social Cognitive Theory constructs mediated effects of the MobileMums (MMP) program on increased duration and frequency of moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in women with young children (<5 years). Methods: This secondary data analysis is from a community-based randomised controlled trial. Over 12 weeks, intervention participants received a minimum of 52 individually tailored text messages, one face-to-face and one telephone-delivered session with a trained behavioural counsellor. Participants identified a support person who also received 12 weeks of individually tailored text messages. Control participants received minimal intervention contact. Data were collected pre- and post-program. Five potential mediators were assessed: barrier self-efficacy, goal setting skills, outcome expectancies, perceived environmental opportunity for physical activity and social support for physical activity. Results: Improvements in MVPA frequency were mediated by improvements in barrier self-efficacy, goal setting skills, outcome expectancies and perceived social support. Improvements in MVPA duration resulting from the MMP were mediated by improvements in women's barrier self-efficacy and goal setting skills. Conclusions: MMP improved targeted theoretical constructs and this led to changes in women's MVPA. These findings are valuable for refinement and translation of the MMP and for further research to create theory- and evidence-based physical activity behaviour change programs for women with young children.

Factors promoting or inhibiting normal birth.

BACKGROUND: In response to rising rates of medical intervention in birth, there has been increased international interest in promoting normal birth (without induction of labour, epidural/spinal/general anaesthesia, episiotomy, forceps/vacuum, or caesarean section). However, there is limited evidence for how best to achieve increased rates of normal birth. In this study we examined the role of modifiable and non-modifiable factors in experiencing a normal birth using retrospective, self-reported data. METHODS: Women who gave birth over a four-month period in Queensland, Australia, were invited to complete a questionnaire about their preferences for and experiences of pregnancy, labour, birth, and postnatal care. Responses (N = 5840) were analysed using multiple logistic regression models to identify associations with four aspects of normal birth: onset of labour, use of anaesthesia, mode of birth, and use of episiotomy. The probability of normal birth was then estimated by combining these models. RESULTS: Overall, 28.7% of women experienced a normal birth. Probability of a normal birth was reduced for women who were primiparous, had a history of caesarean, had a multiple pregnancy, were older, had a more advanced gestational age, experienced pregnancy-related health conditions (gestational diabetes, low-lying placenta, high blood pressure), had continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour, and knew only some of their care providers for labour and birth. Women had a higher probability of normal birth if they lived outside major metropolitan areas, did not receive private obstetric care, had freedom of movement throughout labour, received continuity of care in labour and birth, did not have an augmented labour, or gave birth in a non-supine position. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight several relevant modifiable factors including mobility, monitoring, and care provision during labour and birth, for increasing normal birth opportunity. An important step forward in promoting normal birth is increasing awareness of such relationships through patient involvement in informed decision-making and implementation of this evidence in care guidelines.

Measuring women's experience of induction of labor using prostaglandin vaginal gel.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and examine the EXIT (EXperiences of Induction Tool), and report on the experience of women undergoing PGE2 vaginal gel IOL, who were participants in a randomized controlled trial comparing early amniotomy with repeat-PGE2. STUDY DESIGN: Following an evening dose of PGE2 vaginal gel, 245 women with live singleton term pregnancies were randomized to amniotomy or repeat-PGE2. Women's experience of IOL was a secondary outcome measure, assessed using the self-report EXIT administered by phone at 7-9days post-partum. The 10-item EXIT assessed women's experiences in multiple domains using a 5-point agreement scale. Principal components analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was undertaken to examine the scale structure. Internal consistency, face, content, construct and discriminant validity were also assessed. RESULTS: The final 3-component solution comprised 8 of the 10 EXIT items, explained 76.1% of the variance and had a good fit to model (p<0.001). The three resulting components were representative of women's experience of the time taken to give birth, discomfort with IOL, and subsequent contractions. The items loading to each component showed good internal consistency for time taken to give birth (α=0.88), discomfort with IOL (α=0.78), and experience of subsequent contractions (α=0.87). Women in the repeat-PGE2 group reported a less favorable experience with the time taken to give birth (mean (SD): 3.5 (1.4) vs 3.9 (1.2); p=0.04) and more discomfort with IOL (2.9 (1.1) vs 2.5 (1.0); p=0.04) compared to women in the amniotomy group. At the individual item level, women in the amniotomy group responded more positive about the time taken to have their baby (median (IQR): 4 (3-5) vs 3 (2-5); p<0.01); and less negative to the question about the number of vaginal examinations (2 (1-3) vs 2 (1-4); p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The EXIT shows promise as an instrument for assessing women's experience of IOL. Women undergoing PGE2 vaginal gel IOL reports a more positive experience with an early amniotomy rather than with repeat-PGE2.

Back to normal: A retrospective, cross-sectional study of the multi-factorial determinants of normal birth in Queensland, Australia.

BACKGROUND: currently, care providers and policy-makers internationally are working to promote normal birth. In Australia, such initiatives are being implemented without any evidence of the prevalence or determinants of normal birth as a multidimensional construct. This study aimed to better understand the determinants of normal birth (defined as without induction of labour, epidural/spinal/general anaesthesia, forceps/vacuum, caesarean birth, or episiotomy) using secondary analyses of data from a population survey of women in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: women who birthed in Queensland during a two-week period in 2009 were mailed a survey approximately three months after birth. Women (n=772) provided retrospective data on their pregnancy, labour and birth preferences and experiences, socio-demographic characteristics, and reproductive history. A series of logistic regressions were conducted to determine factors associated with having labour, having a vaginal birth, and having a normal birth. FINDINGS: overall, 81.9% of women had labour, 66.4% had a vaginal birth, and 29.6% had a normal birth. After adjusting for other significant factors, women had significantly higher odds of having labour if they birthed in a public hospital and had a pre-existing preference for a vaginal birth. Of women who had labour, 80.8% had a vaginal birth. Women who had labour had significantly higher odds of having a vaginal birth if they attended antenatal classes, did not have continuous fetal monitoring, felt able to 'take their time' in labour, and had a pre-existing preference for a vaginal birth. Of women who had a vaginal birth, 44.7% had a normal birth. Women who had a vaginal birth had significantly higher odds of having a normal birth if they birthed in a public hospital, birthed outside regular business hours, had mobility in labour, did not have continuous fetal monitoring, and were non-supine during birth. CONCLUSIONS: these findings provide a strong foundation on which to base resources aimed at increasing informed decision-making for maternity care consumers, providers, and policy-makers alike. Research to evaluate the impact of modifying key clinical practices (e.g., supporting women׳s mobility during labour, facilitating non-supine positioning during birth) on the likelihood of a normal birth is an important next step.

What women want: qualitative analysis of consumer evaluations of maternity care in Queensland, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Maternity care reform plans have been proposed at state and national levels in Australia, but the extent to which these respond to maternity care consumers' expressed needs is unclear. This study examines open-text survey comments to identify women's unmet needs and priorities for maternity care. It is then considered whether these needs and priorities are addressed in current reform plans. METHODS: Women who had a live single or multiple birth in Queensland, Australia, in 2010 (n 3,635) were invited to complete a retrospective self-report survey. In addition to questions about clinical and interpersonal maternity care experiences from pregnancy to postpartum, women were asked an open-ended question "Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about having your baby?" This paper describes a detailed thematic analysis of open-ended responses from a random selection of 150 women (10% of 1,510 who responded to the question). RESULTS: Four broad themes emerged relevant to improving women's experiences of maternity care: quality of care (interpersonal and technical); access to choices and involvement in decision-making; unmet information needs; and dissatisfaction with the care environment. Some of these topics are reflected in current reform goals, while others provide evidence of the need for further reforms. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reinforce the importance of some existing maternity reform objectives, and describe how these might best be met. Findings affirm the importance of information provision to enable informed choices; a goal of Queensland and national reform agendas. Improvement opportunities not currently specified in reform agendas were also identified, including the quality of interpersonal relationships between women and staff, particular unmet information needs (e.g., breastfeeding), and concerns regarding the care environment (e.g., crowding and long waiting times).

Why 'down under' is a cut above: a comparison of rates of and reasons for caesarean section in England and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Most studies examining determinants of rising rates of caesarean section have examined patterns in documented reasons for caesarean over time in a single location. Further insights could be gleaned from cross-cultural research that examines practice patterns in locations with disparate rates of caesarean section at a single time point. METHODS: We compared both rates of and main reason for pre-labour and intrapartum caesarean between England and Queensland, Australia, using data from retrospective cross-sectional surveys of women who had recently given birth in England (n = 5,250) and Queensland (n = 3,467). RESULTS: Women in Queensland were more likely to have had a caesarean birth (36.2%) than women in England (25.1% of births; OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.28-1.61), after adjustment for obstetric characteristics. Between-country differences were found for rates of pre-labour caesarean (21.2% vs. 12.2%) but not for intrapartum caesarean or assisted vaginal birth. Compared to women in England, women in Queensland with a history of caesarean were more likely to have had a pre-labour caesarean and more likely to have had an intrapartum caesarean, due only to a previous caesarean. Among women with no previous caesarean, Queensland women were more likely than women in England to have had a caesarean due to suspected disproportion and failure to progress in labour. CONCLUSIONS: The higher rates of caesarean birth in Queensland are largely attributable to higher rates of caesarean for women with a previous caesarean, and for the main reason of having had a previous caesarean. Variation between countries may be accounted for by the absence of a single, comprehensive clinical guideline for caesarean section in Queensland.

Going public: do risk and choice explain differences in caesarean birth rates between public and private places of birth in Australia?

BACKGROUND: women who birth in private facilities in Australia are more likely to have a caesarean birth than women who birth in public facilities and these differences remain after accounting for sector differences in the demographic and health risk profiles of women. However, the extent to which women's preferences and/or freedom to choose their mode of birth further account for differences in the likelihood of caesarean birth between the sectors remains untested. METHOD: women who birthed in Queensland, Australia during a two-week period in 2009 were mailed a self-report survey approximately 3 months after birth. Seven hundred and fifty-seven women provided cross-sectional retrospective data on where they birthed (public or private facility), mode of birth (vaginal or caesarean) and risk factors, along with their preferences and freedom to choose their mode of birth. A hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to determine the extent to which maternal risk and freedom to choose one's mode of birth explain sector differences in the likelihood of having a caesarean birth. FINDINGS: while there was no sector difference in women's preference for mode of birth, women who birthed in private facilities had higher odds of feeling able to choose either a vaginal or caesarean birth, and feeling able to choose only a caesarean birth. Women had higher odds of having caesarean birth if they birthed in private facilities, even after accounting for significant risk factors such as age, body mass index, previous caesarean and use of assisted reproductive technology. However, there was no association between place of birth and odds of having a caesarean birth after also accounting for freedom to choose one's mode of birth. CONCLUSIONS: these findings call into question suggestions that the higher caesarean birth rate in the private sector in Australia is attributable to increased levels of obstetric risk among women birthing in the private sector or maternal preferences alone. Instead, the determinants of sector differences in the likelihood of caesarean births are complex and are linked to differences in the perceived choices for mode of birth between women birthing in the private and public systems.