Patient perspectives and preferences on cerclage and preterm birth: a focus group study
-
Published:2024-06-18
Issue:8
Volume:33
Page:2165-2179
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Author:
Abdulrahman NourORCID, Burger Nicole B., van den Broek Susan, Kaaijk Eugenie M., Oudijk Martijn A., de Boer Marjon A., Huirne Judith A. F.
Abstract
Abstract
Aim
This qualitative focus group study aims to asses cerclage-related symptoms, the impact of a cerclage on daily functioning and patient perspectives of their healthcare experience. This study extends beyond the current focus on surgical and obstetric outcomes of a cerclage, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by individuals in the context of extreme preterm birth and fetal loss and the impact of a cerclage on multiple facets in life.
Methods
Participants were recruited from the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands or via the website of a Dutch patient organization for (extreme) preterm birth. Eligible participants were ≥ 18 years old with a previous vaginal and/or abdominal cerclage with a subsequent delivery at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival. Two focus group discussions (FGD) were performed. A predefined format was used, which was identical for both the vaginal and abdominal cerclage group. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF-DH) was used to provide structure. Outcomes were a broad range of participants reported perspectives on physical, emotional, and social-related quality of life.
Results
In the Vaginal Cerclage Group (VCG) and Abdominal Cerclage Group (ACG), respectively, 11 and 8 participants were included. Fear for a subsequent pregnancy loss was the most limiting factor to perform daily activities during pregnancy in all participants with a cerclage. Fear to conceive again because of prior second-trimester fetal loss was experienced by 27% in the VCG and 13% in the ACG. The majority of participants experienced a reduction in anxiety after placement of their cerclage (VCG = 64%, ACG = 75%). Decreased mobility/bedrest (VCG = 100%, ACG = 75%) and blood loss (VCG = 55%, ACG = 13%) were frequently mentioned complaints during pregnancy with cerclage. Other aspects mentioned in both groups were social isolation, the lack of societal participation, and the perceived need to quit work and sports. All participants in the abdominal cerclage group reported a lack of comprehensible and unambiguous information about obstetric management and expectations during pregnancy in secondary care hospitals. Clear communication between secondary and tertiary care hospitals about obstetric management following an abdominal cerclage, for example, about the need for cervical length measurements by ultrasound, the need for bedrest or advice concerning sexual activity was missing (63%). Psychologic support was desired in half of all participants, but was not offered to them.
Conclusions
The fear of a subsequent pregnancy loss was reported as the most limiting factor in daily life by all participants. Cerclage placement resulted in the reduction of anxiety. Participants mentioned a significant impact of bedrest and activity restriction during pregnancy with cerclage on social participation and daily activities. Unfortunately, no high level evidence is available on this matter. Patients might even benefit from appropriate levels of physical activity throughout their pregnancy to promote their overall well-being. More evidence is needed to determine the optimal level of physical activity. There is a need for clear and unambiguous patient information about obstetric management.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference33 articles.
1. Chawanpaiboon, S., Vogel, J. P., Moller, A. B., Lumbiganon, P., Petzold, M., Hogan, D., et al. (2019). Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: A systematic review and modelling analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 7(1), e37–e46. 2. Berghella, V., Keeler, S. M., To, M. S., Althuisius, S. M., & Rust, O. A. (2010). Effectiveness of cerclage according to severity of cervical length shortening: A meta-analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 35(4), 468–473. 3. Curtis, M., Massoud, M., Doret-Dion, M., Dubernard, G., Huissoud, C., Gavanier, D., et al. (2022). Live birth rate after cervicoisthmic cerclage in patients with previous late miscarriage and/or premature delivery. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction, 51(10), 102496. 4. Golbasi, C., Golbasi, H., Bayraktar, B., Sever, B., Vural, T., & Ekin, A. (2022). Effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of history-indicated, ultrasound-indicated and physical examination-indicated cerclage: A retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 22(1), 217. 5. Aubin, A. M., McAuliffe, L., Williams, K., Issah, A., Diacci, R., McAuliffe, J. E., et al. (2023). Combined vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage in the prevention of preterm birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, 5(8), 101024.
|
|