Search

Background: It is challenging for mothers who give birth very preterm to produce sufficient breast milk by expressing for weeks before their baby is able to feed from the breast, and then to transition from tube feeding to breastfeeding. Lactation is most successful when stimulated shortly after birth, established within 72 h, and maintained by expressing 6–8 times a day. This study explored mothers' experiences of how breast milk feeding and breastfeeding for very preterm babies can be supported by staff and the facilities of a neonatal unit. Methods: Twenty-three mothers of very preterm babies were interviewed, from four neonatal units in England with high or low rates of breast milk feeding at discharge. Interviews were analysed using the COM-B framework to consider how mothers' behaviour (breast milk feeding and breastfeeding) is affected by capability, opportunity and motivation. Results: Mothers' motivation in the traumatic situation of very preterm birth was strongly affected by information from staff about the benefits of breast milk for their baby, the importance of early and frequent expressing, and how to assess the effectiveness of direct breastfeeding. It was maintained through positive feedback about their efforts which built their confidence, and reassurance about what is 'normal' growth when a baby begins direct breastfeeding. Motivation needed to be supported by opportunity, including access to equipment for expressing and facilities to stay near the neonatal unit, and also by capability, which required proactive and skilled information and support from staff. Specialist support and facilities varied between units, and some mothers were not given necessary information or had their motivation undermined by staff comments. Conclusions: Interventions to increase breast milk feeding and breastfeeding for very preterm babies should address mothers' motivation, capability and opportunity, aiming for systematic elimination of obstacles. Mothers value personalised and skilled specialist support, but also need other staff to be able to give consistent information and affirmation focused on their efforts rather than their success, with a trauma-informed approach. Investing in rooming-in facilities that minimise the separation of mothers and babies is likely to overcome a key obstacle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anxiety in pregnancy and postpartum is highly prevalent but under-recognised. To identify perinatal anxiety, assessment tools must be acceptable, relevant, and easy to use for women in the perinatal period. Methods: To determine the acceptability and ease of use of anxiety measures to pregnant or postpartum women (n = 41) we examined five versions of four measures: the Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD) 2-item and 7-item versions; Whooley questions; Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10); and Stirling Antenatal Anxiety Scale (SAAS). Cognitive interviews were used to examine ease of comprehension, judgement, retrieval and responding. Results: All measures were acceptable. Some items were deemed less relevant to the perinatal period e.g., difficulties sleeping. Ease of comprehension, judgement, retrieval and responding varied, with all measures having strengths and weaknesses. The SAAS and CORE-10 had the lowest mean number of problematic components. The GAD had the highest mean number of problematic components​. Non-binary response options were preferred. Preferences for time frames (e.g. one week, one month) varied. Qualitative data provides in-depth information on responses to each measure. Conclusions: Findings can be used to inform clinical guidelines and research on acceptable anxiety assessment in pregnancy and after birth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Posttraumatic stress (PTS) and anxiety are common mental health problems among parents of babies admitted to a neonatal unit (NNU). This review aimed to identify sociodemographic, pregnancy and birth, and psychological factors associated with PTS and anxiety in this population. Method: Studies published up to December 2022 were retrieved by searching Medline, Embase, PsychoINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases. The modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort and cross-sectional studies was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. This review was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021270526). Results: Forty-nine studies involving 8,447 parents were included; 18 studies examined factors for PTS, 24 for anxiety and 7 for both. Only one study of anxiety factors was deemed to be of good quality. Studies generally included a small sample size and were methodologically heterogeneous. Pooling of data was not feasible. Previous history of mental health problems (four studies) and parental perception of more severe infant illness (five studies) were associated with increased risk of PTS, and had the strongest evidence. Shorter gestational age (≤ 33 weeks) was associated with an increased risk of anxiety (three studies) and very low birth weight (< 1000g) was associated with an increased risk of both PTS and anxiety (one study). Stress related to the NNU environment was associated with both PTS (one study) and anxiety (two studies), and limited data suggested that early engagement in infant's care (one study), efficient parent-staff communication (one study), adequate social support (two studies) and positive coping mechanisms (one study) may be protective factors for both PTS and anxiety. Perinatal anxiety, depression and PTS were all highly comorbid conditions (as with the general population) and the existence of one mental health condition was a risk factor for others. Conclusion: Heterogeneity limits the interpretation of findings. Until clearer evidence is available on which parents are most at risk, good communication with parents and universal screening of PTS and anxiety for all parents whose babies are admitted to NNU is needed to identify those parents who may benefit most from mental health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Perineal trauma, involving either naturally occurring tears or episiotomy, is common during childbirth but little is known about its psychological impact. This study aimed to determine the associations between childbirth related perineal trauma and psychological outcomes reported by women three months after giving birth and to explore factors that could mediate relationships between perineal trauma and maternal psychological outcomes. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional population-based survey of maternal and infant health. A total of 4,578 women responded to the survey, of which 3,307 had a vaginal birth and were eligible for inclusion into the analysis. Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (PTS) symptoms were assessed using validated self- report measures. Physical symptoms were derived from a checklist and combined to produce a composite physical symptoms score. Regression models were fitted to explore the associations. Results: Nearly three quarters of women experienced some degree of perineal trauma. Women who experienced perineal trauma reported having more postnatal physical symptoms (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.47, 95%CI 1.38 to 1.57, p-value < 0.001), were more likely to report PTS symptoms (adjusted OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.36, p-value 0.010), and there was strong evidence that each unit increase in the physical symptoms score was associated with between 38 and 90% increased adjusted odds of adverse psychological symptoms. There was no evidence of association between perineal trauma and satisfaction with postnatal care, although there was strong evidence that satisfaction with labour and birth was associated with 16% reduced adjusted odds of depression and 30% reduced adjusted odds of PTS symptoms. Conclusions: Women who experienced perineal trauma were more likely to experience physical symptoms, and the more physical symptoms a woman experienced the more likely she was to report having postnatal depression, anxiety and PTS symptoms. There was some evidence of a direct association between perineal trauma and PTS symptoms but no evidence of a direct association between perineal trauma and depression or anxiety. Assessment and management of physical symptoms in the postnatal period may play an important role in reducing both physical and psychological postnatal morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous research suggests that mothers whose infants are admitted to neonatal units (NNU) experience higher rates of mental health problems compared to the general perinatal population. This study examined the prevalence and factors associated with postnatal depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (PTS), and comorbidity of these mental health problems for mothers of infants admitted to NNU, six months after childbirth. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of two cross-sectional, population-based National Maternity Surveys in England in 2018 and 2020. Postnatal depression, anxiety, and PTS were assessed using standardised measures. Associations between sociodemographic, pregnancy- and birth-related factors and postnatal depression, anxiety, PTS, and comorbidity of these mental health problems were explored using modified Poisson regression and multinomial logistic regression. Results: Eight thousand five hundred thirty-nine women were included in the analysis, of whom 935 were mothers of infants admitted to NNU. Prevalence of postnatal mental health problems among mothers of infants admitted to NNU was 23.7% (95%CI: 20.6–27.2) for depression, 16.0% (95%CI: 13.4–19.0) for anxiety, 14.6% (95%CI: 12.2–17.5) for PTS, 8.2% (95%CI: 6.5–10.3) for two comorbid mental health problems, and 7.5% (95%CI: 5.7–10.0) for three comorbid mental health problems six months after giving birth. These rates were consistently higher compared to mothers whose infants were not admitted to NNU (19.3% (95%CI: 18.3–20.4) for depression, 14.0% (95%CI: 13.1–15.0) for anxiety, 10.3% (95%CI: 9.5–11.1) for PTS, 8.5% (95%CI: 7.8–9.3) for two comorbid mental health problems, and 4.2% (95%CI: 3.6–4.8) for three comorbid mental health problems six months after giving birth. Among mothers of infants admitted to NNU (N = 935), the strongest risk factors for mental health problems were having a long-term mental health problem and antenatal anxiety, while social support and satisfaction with birth were protective. Conclusions: Prevalence of postnatal mental health problems was higher in mothers of infants admitted to NNU, compared to mothers of infants not admitted to NNU six months after giving birth. Experiencing previous mental health problems increased the risk of postnatal depression, anxiety, and PTS whereas social support and satisfaction with birth were protective. The findings highlight the importance of routine and repeated mental health assessments and ongoing support for mothers of infants admitted to NNU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The perinatal period is a vulnerable time, with one in five women experiencing mental health problems. Antenatal and postnatal appointments are key contact points for identifying women in need of support. Since 2014, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended that all women be asked about their mental health at their antenatal booking appointment and early in the postnatal period. The aim of this study was to assess the proportions of women who reported being asked about their mental health during the perinatal period across consecutive national maternity surveys (NMS) in England and to evaluate sociodemographic disparities in who was asked. Methods: Secondary analysis was performed on cross-sectional data from the NMS in 2014–2020. In each survey, women reported whether they had been asked about their mental health antenatally (during their booking appointment) and postnatally (up to six months after giving birth). The proportions of women in each survey who reported being asked about their mental health were calculated and compared according to key sociodemographic characteristics and across survey years. Logistic regression was conducted to identify disparities in who was asked. Results: The proportion of women who reported being asked about their mental health antenatally increased from 80.3% (95%CI:79.0–81.5) in 2014 to 83.4% (95%CI:82.1–84.7) in 2020, yet the proportion of women who reported being asked postnatally fell from 88.2% (95%CI:87.1–89.3) in 2014 to 73.7% (95%CI:72.2–75.2) in 2020. Ethnic minority women (aOR range:0.20 ~ 0.67) were less likely to report being asked about their mental health antenatally and postnatally across all surveys compared to White women. Women living in less socioeconomically advantaged areas (aOR range:0.65 ~ 0.75) and women living without or separately from a partner (aOR range:0.61 ~ 0.73) were also less likely to report being asked about their mental health, although there was less consistency in these disparities across the antenatal and postnatal periods and across surveys. Conclusions: Despite NICE recommendations, many women are still not asked about their mental health during the perinatal period, particularly after giving birth. Women from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to be asked and these disparities have persisted over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnancy and the postnatal period can be times of psychosocial stress and insecurity, but high quality maternity care and social support can help mothers cope with stress and feel more secure. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated social and economic disruption increased rates of antenatal and postnatal stress, anxiety and depression, and also had profound impacts on the organisation of maternity services in England.Methods: This was a qualitative descriptive study of the impact of pandemic-related changes to maternity care on mothers' emotional wellbeing, using inductive thematic analysis of open text responses to the National Maternity Survey (NMS) 2020 in England. A random sample of 16,050 mothers who gave birth 11-24th May 2020 were invited to take part in the survey, and 4,611 responded, with 4,384 answering at least one open text question.Results: There were three themes: 'Chaos: impact of uncertainty', 'Abandoned: impact of reduction in care', and 'Alone: impact of loss of social support'. Mothers valued maternity care and many experienced additional stress from chaotic changes and reduction in care during the pandemic; from health professionals' own uncertainty and anxiety; and from restrictions on essential social support during pregnancy, labour and birth. Others felt that health professionals had communicated and cared for them well despite the changes and restrictions, and these mothers felt psychologically safe.Conclusions: Planning for future crises should include considering how necessary adaptations to care can be implemented and communicated to minimise distress; ensuring that mothers are not deprived of social support at the time when they are at their most vulnerable; and supporting the psychological welfare of staff at a time of enormous pressure. There are also lessons for maternity care in 'normal' times: that care is highly valued, but trust is easily lost; that some mothers come into the maternity system with vulnerabilities that can be ameliorated or intensified by the attitudes of staff; that every effort should be made to welcome a mother's partner or chosen companion into maternity care; and that high quality postnatal care can make a real difference to mothers' wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Measuring positive and negative aspects of well-being during pregnancy and childbirth is important for both healthy women and women who are living with long-term health conditions (LTCs). This study aimed to further refine the Well-being in Pregnancy (WiP) questionnaire and to incorporate LTC specific items where appropriate. Methods: A multi-method study. Cognitive interviews with pregnant or postpartum women (n = 11) and consultations with healthcare professionals (n = 11) and public representatives (n = 4) were conducted to explore the acceptability of existing WiP items and content. Items were refined and subsequently administered on an online survey (n = 768). Item reduction steps and exploratory factor analysis were performed on survey data. Convergent validity was examined using Pearson correlation coefficients to compare relationships with other included validated assessments. Results: Following amendments to three items, the addition of eight core WiP items and five LTC specific items, a total of 25 items were considered relevant and appropriate for use with pregnant women. Analysis of survey data reduced the questionnaire to 12 items measuring three core WiP scales; 1) Concerns over support after birth, 2) Positive pregnancy and, 3) Confidence about motherhood, and a five item standalone LTC specific scale. All scales demonstrated good validity and internal reliability. Scores for the three core scales moderately correlated with established well-being measures indicating that they were measuring similar, yet distinct concepts. Conclusions: Analyses confirmed good psychometric properties of the refined WiP questionnaire. The use of pregnancy specific well-being measures, such as the WiP, provide a route into asking women in more detail about how their care may be tailored to support them and also facilitates positive conversations with women about how care and experience of pregnancy and childbirth may be enhanced further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying women with perinatal anxiety is important in order to provide timely support and prevent adverse outcomes. Self-report instruments are commonly used in maternity settings. An alternative is to ask women directly whether they self-identify as having anxiety. We examine the agreement between self-reported and self-identified anxiety at 3 months postpartum and compare the characteristics of women with self-reported and self-identified anxiety.Methods: A secondary analysis of national maternity surveys conducted in 2014 in England and Northern Ireland was conducted. Self-reported anxiety was assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale (EPDS-3A). Agreement between self-reported and self-identified anxiety was measured using Cohen's kappa. Logistic regression was used to identify characteristics of women in each group.Results: In our sample of 6752 women, 14.2% had self-reported anxiety, 5.9% had self-identified anxiety and 3.5% were positive on both measures. Among those with self-identified anxiety, 58.1% also had self-reported anxiety. Of those with self-reported anxiety, 24.4% also had self-identified anxiety. Statistical agreement between the two measures was minimal with Cohen's kappa 0.283 at an EPDS-3A threshold of ≥6. Among both self-identified and self-reported anxiety groups, psychological factors were the strongest associated factors. Women with self-reported anxiety had higher odds of being from Northern Ireland (OR 1.81); having a mixed or unhappy reaction to the pregnancy (OR 1.65); living without a partner (aOR 1.37); and antenatal depression (aOR 1.32). Women with self-identified anxiety had higher odds of physical problems (OR 1.84); and being of Black or minority ethnicity (OR 0.39).Conclusions: Asking postnatal women directly whether they self-identify as having anxiety identifies a different group of women from those who score highly on self-report measures. Women with self-identified anxiety may benefit from further follow-up and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of multi-component antenatal care interventions on service delivery and outcomes in many countries since the 1980s. Some have applied entirely new schemes, while others have modified existing care delivery approaches. Systematic reviews (SRs) indicate that some specific antenatal interventions are more effective than others; however the causal mechanisms leading to better outcomes are poorly understood, limiting implementation and future research. As a first step in identifying what might be making the difference we conducted a scoping review of interventions tested in RCTs in order to establish a taxonomy of antenatal care models.Methods: A protocol-driven systematic search was undertaken of databases for RCTs and SRs reporting antenatal care interventions. Results were unrestricted by time or locality, but limited to English language. Key characteristics of both experimental and control interventions in the included trials were mapped using SPIO (Study design; Population; Intervention; Outcomes) criteria and the intervention and principal outcome measures were described. Commonalities and differences between the components that were being tested in each study were identified by consensus, resulting in a comprehensive description of emergent models for antenatal care interventions.Results: Of 13,050 articles retrieved, we identified 153 eligible articles including 130 RCTs in 34 countries. The interventions tested in these trials varied from the number of visits to the location of care provision, and from the content of care to the professional/lay group providing that care. In most studies neither intervention nor control arm was well described. Our analysis of the identified trials of antenatal care interventions produced the following taxonomy: Universal provision model (for all women irrespective of health state or complications); Restricted 'lower-risk'-based provision model (midwifery-led or reduced/flexible visit approach for healthy women); Augmented provision model (antenatal care as in Universal provision above but augmented by clinical, educational or behavioural intervention); Targeted 'higher-risk'-based provision model (for woman with defined clinical or socio-demographic risk factors). The first category was most commonly tested in low-income countries (i.e. resource-poor settings), particularly in Asia. The other categories were tested around the world. The trials included a range of care providers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and lay workers.Conclusions: Interventions can be defined and described in many ways. The intended antenatal care population group proved the simplest and most clinically relevant way of distinguishing trials which might otherwise be categorised together. Since our review excluded non-trial interventions, the taxonomy does not represent antenatal care provision worldwide. It offers a stable and reproducible approach to describing the purpose and content of models of antenatal care which have been tested in a trial. It highlights a lack of reported detail of trial interventions and usual care processes. It provides a baseline for future work to examine and test the salient characteristics of the most effective models, and could also help decision-makers and service planners in planning implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models' characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0-32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Correction: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 22, 325 (2022) b B https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04626-x b Following publication of the original article [[1]], the author reported that the 2nd author "Research Officer" should be deleted from the author group. Reference 1 Kelly L, Kurinczuk JJ, Fitzpatrick R. Refinement of the well-being in pregnancy (WiP) questionnaire: cognitive interviews with women and healthcare professionals and a validation survey. [Extracted from the article]