Search

A combination of mifepristone and a prostaglandin preparation should usually be recommended as the first-line intervention for induction of labour (Grade B). A single 200 milligram dose of mifepristone is appropriate for this indication, followed by: 24 +0 -24 +6 weeks of gestation - 400 micrograms buccal/sublingual/vaginal/oral of misoprostol every 3 hours; 25 +0 -27 +6 weeks of gestation - 200 micrograms buccal/sublingual/vaginal/oral of misoprostol every 4 hours; from 28 +0 weeks of gestation - 25-50 micrograms vaginal every 4 hours, or 50-100 micrograms oral every 2 hours [Grade C]. There is insufficient evidence available to recommend a specific regimen of misoprostol for use at more than 28 +0  weeks of gestation in women who have had a previous caesarean birth or transmural uterine scar [Grade D]. Women with more than two lower segment caesarean births or atypical scars should be advised that the safety of induction of labour is unknown [Grade D]. Staff should be educated in discussing mode of birth with bereaved parents. Vaginal birth is recommended for most women, but caesarean birth will need to be considered for some [Grade D]. A detailed informed discussion should be undertaken with parents of both physical and psychological aspects of a vaginal birth versus a caesarean birth [Grade C]. Parents should be cared for in an environment that provides adequate safety according to individual clinical circumstance, while meeting their needs to grieve and feel supported in doing so (GPP). Clinical and laboratory tests should be recommended to assess maternal wellbeing (including coagulopathy) and to determine the cause of fetal death, the chance of recurrence and possible means of avoiding future pregnancy complications [Grade D]. Parents should be advised that with full investigation (including postmortem and placental histology) a possible or probable cause can be found in up to three-quarters of late intrauterine fetal deaths [Grade B]. All parents should be offered cytogenetic testing of their baby, which should be performed after written consent is given (GPP). Parents should be advised that postmortem examination can provide information that can sometimes be crucial to the management of future pregnancy [Grade B]., (© 2024 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objectives: To explore and characterise maternity healthcare professionals' (MHCPs) experience and practice of shared decision-making (SDM), to inform policy, research and practice development., Design: Qualitative focus group study., Setting: Large Maternity Unit in the Southwest of England., Participants: MHCPs who give information relating to clinical procedures and pregnancy care relating to labour and birth and are directly involved in decision-making conversations were purposively sampled to ensure representation across MHCP groups., Data Collection: A semistructured topic guide was used., Data Analysis: Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken., Results: Seven focus groups were conducted, comprising a total of 24 participants (3-5 per group). Two themes were developed: contextualising decision-making and controversies in current decision-making. Contextual factors that influenced decision-making practices included lack of time and challenges faced in intrapartum care. MHCPs reported variation in how they approach decision-making conversations and asked for more training on how to consistently achieve SDM. There were communication challenges with women who did not speak English. Three controversies were explored: the role of prior clinical experience, the validity of informed consent when women were in pain and during life-threatening emergencies and instances where women declined medical advice., Conclusions: We found that MHCPs are committed to SDM but need better support to deliver it. Structured processes including Core Information Sets, communication skills training and decision support aids may help to consistently deliver SDM in maternity care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Microplastics, produced through degradation of environmental plastic pollution, have been detected in human tissues including placenta and fetal meconium. Cell culture and animal studies have demonstrated potential reproductive toxicity of these particles; however, their association with adverse fertility or pregnancy outcomes in humans is not known., Objectives: To synthesise evidence for the presence of microplastics in human reproductive tissue and their associations with environmental exposures and reproductive outcomes., Search Strategy: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP were searched from inception to 03/02/2023., Selection Criteria: Studies of human participants, assessing presence of microplastics in reproductive tissues, environmental exposures to microplastics, and fertility- or pregnancy-related outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, microplastics detected, environmental exposures and reproductive outcomes. Narrative synthesis was performed due to methodological heterogeneity., Main Results: Of 1094 citations, seven studies were included, covering 96 participants. Microplastics composed of 16 different polymer types were detected in both placental and meconium samples. Two studies reported associations between lifestyle factors (daily water intake, use of scrub cleanser or toothpaste, bottled water and takeaway food) and placental microplastics. One study reported associations between meconium microplastics and reduced microbiota diversity. One reported placental microplastic levels correlated with reduced birthweights and 1-minute Apgar scores., Conclusions: There is a need for high-quality observational studies to assess the effects of microplastics on human reproductive health., (© 2024 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Studies have shown that women are often underinformed about potential benefits and risks of vaginal birth. This is in contrast to other modes of birth, such as caesarean birth, for which the risks/benefits are often conveyed prior to undergoing the procedure. A core information set (CIS) is an agreed set of information points that should be discussed with all patients prior to undergoing a procedure or intervention. This CIS could improve the quality of information given regarding mode of birth options, as women will be given information prioritised by patients and stakeholders regarding vaginal birth, empowering them to make informed decisions about their birth. We aim to describe the protocol for the development of this vaginal birth CIS., Methods and Analysis: We will develop the CIS by: (1) Compiling a 'long-list' of information points about vaginal birth by: undertaking a scoping review of studies and patient information leaflets; interviews with antenatal/postnatal women, an online survey of stakeholders. (2) Collating the 'long-list' of information points and developing the Delphi survey. Think-aloud interviews will refine the survey. (3) Conducting a two-round Delphi survey. 200 stakeholder participants will be recruited. Items rated critically important by ≥80% of participants in one stakeholder group, or with no consensus, will be carried through to a stakeholder consensus meeting to decide the final CIS. Planned start date is 1 June 2022. Planned end date is 31 August 2023., Ethics and Dissemination: This project has been given a favourable ethics opinion by the University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10530). Approval from the ethics committee will be sought for any protocol amendments, and the principal investigator will be responsible for these changes. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a high-impact journal. We will disseminate the CIS, via Policy Bristol, to clinical policy and guideline developers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: A core outcome set could address inconsistent outcome reporting and improve evidence for stillbirth care research, which have been identified as an important research priority., Objectives: To identify outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported by studies evaluating interventions after the diagnosis of a stillbirth., Search Strategy: Amed, BNI, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP from 1998 to August 2021., Selection Criteria: Randomised and non-randomised comparative or non-comparative studies reporting a stillbirth care intervention., Data Collection and Analysis: Interventions, outcomes reported, definitions and outcome measurement tools were extracted., Main Results: Forty randomised and 200 non-randomised studies were included. Fifty-eight different interventions were reported, labour and birth care (52 studies), hospital bereavement care (28 studies), clinical investigations (116 studies), care in a multiple pregnancy (2 studies), psychosocial support (28 studies) and care in a subsequent pregnancy (14 studies). A total of 391 unique outcomes were reported and organised into 14 outcome domains: labour and birth; postpartum; delivery of care; investigations; multiple pregnancy; mental health; emotional functioning; grief and bereavement; social functioning; relationship; whole person; subsequent pregnancy; subsequent children and siblings and economic. A total of 242 outcome measurement instruments were used, with 0-22 tools per outcome., Conclusions: Heterogeneity in outcome reporting, outcome definition and measurement tools in care after stillbirth exists. Considerable research gaps on specific intervention types in stillbirth care were identified. A core outcome set is needed to standardise outcome collection and reporting for stillbirth care research., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Sub-optimal medication adherence in pregnant women with chronic disease and pregnancy-related indications has the potential to adversely affect maternal and perinatal outcomes. Adherence to appropriate medications is advocated during and when planning pregnancy to reduce risk of adverse perinatal outcomes relating to chronic disease and pregnancy-related indications. We aimed to systematically identify effective interventions to promote medication adherence in women who are pregnant or planning to conceive and impact on perinatal, maternal disease-related and adherence outcomes., Methods: Six bibliographic databases and two trial registries were searched from inception to 28th April 2022. We included quantitative studies evaluating medication adherence interventions in pregnant women and women planning pregnancy. Two reviewers selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, effectiveness, intervention description (TIDieR) and risk of bias (EPOC). Narrative synthesis was performed due to study population, intervention and outcome heterogeneity., Results: Of 5614 citations, 13 were included. Five were RCTs, and eight non-randomised comparative studies. Participants had asthma (n = 2), HIV (n = 6), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n = 2), diabetes (n = 2) and risk of pre-eclampsia (n = 1). Interventions included education +/- counselling, financial incentives, text messaging, action plans, structured discussion and psychosocial support. One RCT found an effect  of the tested intervention on self-reported antiretroviral adherence but not objective adherence. Clinical outcomes were not evaluated. Seven non-randomised comparative studies found an association between the tested intervention and at least one outcome of interest: four found an association between receiving the intervention and both improved clinical or perinatal outcomes and adherence in women with IBD, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and asthma. One study in women with IBD reported an association between receiving the intervention and maternal outcomes but not for self-reported adherence. Two studies measured only adherence outcomes and reported an association between receiving the intervention and self-reported and/or objective adherence in women with HIV and risk of pre-eclampsia. All studies had high or unclear risk of bias. Intervention reporting was adequate for replication in two studies according to the TIDieR checklist., Conclusions: There is a need for high-quality RCTs reporting replicable interventions to evaluate medication adherence interventions in pregnant women and those planning pregnancy. These should assess both clinical and adherence outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers., Methods and Analysis: The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018087748., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AW has received consulting fees from the Sillbirth CRE., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)