Group antenatal care: findings from a pilot randomised controlled trial of REACH Pregnancy Circles

Author:

Sawtell MaryORCID,Wiggins Meg,Wiseman Octavia,Mehay Anita,McCourt Christine,Sweeney Lorna,Hatherall Bethan,Ahmed Tahania,Greenberg Lauren,Hunter Rachael,Hamborg Thomas,Eldridge Sandra,Harden Angela

Abstract

Abstract Background Antenatal care has the potential to impact positively on maternal and child outcomes, but traditional models of care in the UK have been shown to have limitations and particularly for those from deprived populations. Group antenatal care is an alternative model to traditional individual care. It combines conventional aspects of antenatal assessment with group discussion and support. Delivery of group antenatal care has been shown to be successful in various countries; there is now a need for a formal trial in the UK. Method An individual randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a model of group care (Pregnancy Circles) delivered in NHS settings serving populations with high levels of deprivation and diversity was conducted in an inner London NHS trust. This was an external pilot study for a potential fully powered RCT with integral economic evaluation. The pilot aimed to explore the feasibility of methods for the full trial. Inclusion criteria included pregnant with a due date in a certain range, 16 + years and living within specified geographic areas. Data were analysed for completeness and usability in a full trial; no hypothesis testing for between-group differences in outcome measures was undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria corresponding to five feasibility measures were set. Additional aims were to assess the utility of our proposed outcome measures and different data collection routes. A process evaluation utilising interviews and observations was conducted. Results Seventy-four participants were randomised, two more than the a priori target. Three Pregnancy Circles of eight sessions each were run. Interviews were undertaken with ten pregnant participants, seven midwives and four other stakeholders; two observations of intervention sessions were conducted. Progression criteria were met at sufficient levels for all five measures: available recruitment numbers, recruitment rate, intervention uptake and retention and questionnaire completion rates. Outcome measure assessments showed feasibility and sufficient completion rates; the development of an economic evaluation composite measure of a ‘positive healthy birth’ was initiated. Conclusion Our pilot findings indicate that a full RCT would be feasible to conduct with a few adjustments related to recruitment processes, language support, accessibility of intervention premises and outcome assessment. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN66925258. Retrospectively registered, 03 April 2017.

Funder

Programme Grants for Applied Research

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Medicine (miscellaneous)

Reference29 articles.

1. Cooper, G., McClure, JH., & Clutton-Brock, T. Why mothers die 2000–2002: the sixth report of the confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom. s.l. : CEMACH, 2004.

2. Lindquist A, Kurinczuk J, Redshaw M, Knight M. Experiences, utilisation and outcomes of maternity care in England among women from different socio-economic groups: findings. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol [Internet]. 2015;122:12.

3. Knight M, Bunch K, Tuffnell D, Shakespeare J, Kotnis R, Kenyon S, Kurinczuk JJ (Eds.) on behalf of MBRRACE-UK. Saving lives, improving mothers’ care - lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential. Oxford : National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, 2019.

4. Rising SS. Centering pregnancy: an interdisciplinary model of empowerment. J Nurse Midwifery. 1998;43(1):46–54.

5. Ickovics J, Kershaw T, Westdahl C, Magriples U, Massey Z, Reynolds H, Rising S. Group prenatal care and perinatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2007;110(2):330–9.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3