Search

Objective: To quantify parents' experiences of respectful care around stillbirth globally., Design: Multi-country, online, cross-sectional survey., Setting and Population: Self-identified bereaved parents (n = 3769) of stillborn babies from 44 high- and middle-income countries., Methods: Parents' perspectives of seven aspects of care quality, factors associated with respectful care and seven bereavement care practices were compared across geographical regions using descriptive statistics. Respectful care was compared between country-income groups using multivariable logistic regression., Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported experience of care around the time of stillbirth., Results: A quarter (25.4%) of 3769 respondents reported disrespectful care after stillbirth and 23.5% reported disrespectful care of their baby. Gestation less than 30 weeks and primiparity were associated with disrespect. Reported respectful care was lower in middle-income countries than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.29-0.42, p < 0.01). In many countries, aspects of care quality need improvement, such as ensuring families have enough time with providers. Participating respondents from Latin America and southern Europe reported lower satisfaction across all aspects of care quality compared with northern Europe. Unmet need for memory-making activities in middle-income countries was high., Conclusions: Many parents experience disrespectful care around stillbirth. Provider training and system-level support to address practical barriers are urgently needed. However, some practices (which are important to parents) can be readily implemented such as memory-making activities and referring to the baby by name., Tweetable Abstract: One in four experience disrespectful care after stillbirth. Parents want more time with providers and their babies, to talk and memory-make., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Parent engagement in perinatal mortality review meetings following stillbirth may benefit parents and improve patient safety. We investigated perinatal mortality review meeting practices, including the extent of parent engagement, based on self-reports from healthcare professionals from maternity care facilities in six high-income countries., Design: Cross-sectional online survey., Setting: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK and USA., Population: A total of 1104 healthcare professionals, comprising mainly obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives and nurses., Methods: Data were drawn from responses to a survey covering stillbirth-related topics. Open- and closed-items that focused on 'Data quality on causes of stillbirth' were analysed., Main Outcome Measures: Healthcare professionals' self-reported practices around perinatal mortality review meetings following stillbirth., Results: Most clinicians (81.0%) were aware of regular audit meetings to review stillbirth at their maternity facility, although this was true for only 35.5% of US respondents. For the 854 respondents whose facility held regular meetings, less than a third (31.1%) reported some form of parent engagement, and this was usually in the form of one-way post-meeting feedback. Across all six countries, only 17.1% of respondents described an explicit approach where parents provided input, received feedback and were represented at meetings., Conclusions: We found no established practice of involving parents in the perinatal mortality review process in six high-income countries. Parent engagement may hold the key to important lessons for stillbirth prevention and care. Further understanding of approaches, barriers and enablers is warranted., Tweetable Abstract: Parent engagement in mortality review after stillbirth is rare, based on data from six countries. We need to understand the barriers., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Stillbirth is a tragedy that can leave parents feeling powerless and vulnerable. Respectful and supportive bereavement care is essential to reducing adverse psychosocial impact. Initiatives of the Australian Centre of Research Excellence in Stillbirth are designed to improve care after stillbirth. At their heart are the voices of perinatally bereaved parents and support organisations and shared decision making between parents and health care providers. Priorities in future perinatal bereavement care research include ensuring appropriate care for population groups who experience higher rates of stillbirth and addressing implementation challenges to best practice in respectful and supportive bereavement care within our health systems., (Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Midwives. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stillbirth is a major global concern. However, most research has been conducted in high-income countries. Understanding of the experience and management of stillbirth in low-middle income countries is needed., Objective: This qualitative study explored health professionals' experiences of providing stillbirth care in the Lao People's Democratic Republic, a lower-middle-income country in South-East Asia., Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 33 health professionals (doctors, midwives and nurses) and thematic analysis was undertaken., Results: All participants acknowledged stillbirth as a concern, but its incidence and causes were largely undocumented and unknown. A lack of training in managing stillbirth left health professionals often ill-equipped to support mothers and provide responsive care. Social stigma surrounds stillbirth, meaning mothers found limited support or opportunities to openly express their grief., Conclusions: Better awareness of stillbirth causes could promote more positive experiences for healthcare providers and parents and more responsive healthcare. This requires improved training for healthcare professionals and awareness raising in the wider community.

Background: Stillbirth has a profound impact on women, families, and healthcare workers. The burden is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need for respectful and supportive care for women, partners, and families after bereavement., Objective: To perform a qualitative meta-summary of parents' and healthcare professionals' experiences of care after stillbirth in LMICs., Search Strategy: Search terms were formulated by identifying all synonyms, thesaurus terms, and variations for stillbirth. Databases searched were AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, BNI, CINAHL., Selection Criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies that addressed parents' or healthcare professionals' experience of care after stillbirth in LMICs., Data Collection and Analysis: Studies were screened, and data extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed using the Sandelowski meta-summary technique that calculates frequency and intensity effect sizes (FES/IES)., Main Results: In all, 118 full texts were screened, and 34 studies from 17 countries were included. FES range was 15-68%. Most studies had IES 1.5-4.5. Women experience a broad range of manifestations of grief following stillbirth, which may not be recognised by healthcare workers or in their communities. Lack of recognition exacerbates negative experiences of stigmatisation, blame, devaluation, and loss of social status. Adequately developed health systems, with trained and supported staff, are best equipped to provide the support and information that women want after stillbirth., Conclusions: Basic interventions could have an immediate impact on the experiences of women and their families after stillbirth. Examples include public education to reduce stigma, promoting the respectful maternity care agenda, and investigating stillbirth appropriately., Tweetable Abstract: Reducing stigma, promoting respectful care and investigating stillbirth have a positive impact after stillbirth for women and families in LMICs., (© 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: Early childhood vaccination is an essential global public health practice that saves two to three million lives each year, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. To achieve and maintain appropriate coverage rates, vaccination programmes rely on people having sufficient awareness and acceptance of vaccines.Face-to-face information or educational interventions are widely used to help parents understand why vaccines are important; explain where, how and when to access services; and address hesitancy and concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy. Such interventions are interactive, and can be adapted to target particular populations or identified barriers.This is an update of a review originally published in 2013., Objectives: To assess the effects of face-to-face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on vaccination status and parental knowledge, attitudes and intention to vaccinate., Search Methods: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and two trial registries (July and August 2017). We screened reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. We had no language or date restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effects of face-to-face interventions delivered to parents or expectant parents to inform or educate them about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face-to-face intervention. The World Health Organization recommends that children receive all early childhood vaccines, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV), which is delivered to adolescents., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently reviewed all search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies., Main Results: In this update, we found four new studies, for a total of ten studies. We included seven RCTs and three cluster-RCTs involving a total of 4527 participants, although we were unable to pool the data from one cluster-RCT. Three of the ten studies were conducted in low- or middle- income countries.All included studies compared face-to-face interventions with control. Most studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single intervention session delivered to individual parents. The interventions were an even mix of short (ten minutes or less) and longer sessions (15 minutes to several hours).Overall, elements of the study designs put them at moderate to high risk of bias. All studies but one were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (i.e. used a random number sequence). For allocation concealment (i.e. the person randomising participants was unaware of the study group to which participant would be allocated), three were at high risk and one was judged at unclear risk of bias. Due to the educational nature of the intervention, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in any studies. The risk of bias due to blinding of outcome assessors was judged as low for four studies. Most studies were at unclear risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Other potential sources of bias included failure to account for clustering in a cluster-RCT and significant unexplained baseline differences between groups. One cluster-RCT was at high risk for selective recruitment of participants.We judged the certainty of the evidence to be low for the outcomes of children's vaccination status, parents' attitudes or beliefs, intention to vaccinate, adverse effects (e.g. anxiety), and immunisation cost, and moderate for parents' knowledge or understanding. All studies had limitations in design. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence where we judged that studies had problems with randomisation or allocation concealment, or when outcomes were self-reported by participants who knew whether they'd received the intervention or not. We also downgraded the certainty for inconsistency (vaccination status), imprecision (intention to vaccinate and adverse effects), and indirectness (attitudes or beliefs, and cost).Low-certainty evidence from seven studies (3004 participants) suggested that face-to-face interventions to inform or educate parents may improve vaccination status (risk ratio (RR) 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37). Moderate-certainty evidence from four studies (657 participants) found that face-to-face interventions probably slightly improved parent knowledge (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38), and low-certainty evidence from two studies (179 participants) suggested they may slightly improve intention to vaccinate (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.85). Low-certainty evidence found the interventions may lead to little or no change in parent attitudes or beliefs about vaccination (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.27; three studies, 292 participants), or in parents' anxiety (mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -7.27 to 3.41; one study, 90 participants). Only one study (365 participants) measured the intervention cost of a case management strategy, reporting that the estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care (low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported outcomes associated with parents' experience of the intervention (e.g. satisfaction)., Authors' Conclusions: There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that face-to-face information or education may improve or slightly improve children's vaccination status, parents' knowledge, and parents' intention to vaccinate.Face-to-face interventions may be more effective in populations where lack of awareness or understanding of vaccination is identified as a barrier (e.g. where people are unaware of new or optional vaccines). The effect of the intervention in a population where concerns about vaccines or vaccine hesitancy is the primary barrier is less clear. Reliable and validated scales for measuring more complex outcomes, such as attitudes or beliefs, are necessary in order to improve comparisons of the effects across studies.

Background: Stillbirth, among the most distressing experiences an adult may face, is also a time when parents must decide whether an autopsy or other post-mortem examinations will be performed on their infant. Autopsies can reveal information that might help explain stillbirth, yet little is known about how people make this difficult decision., Objectives: This study examines the influences on decisions about autopsy after stillbirth among Australian parents., Design: The study involved secondary analysis of transcripts of three focus groups using qualitative content analysis., Participants and Setting: Seventeen parents of 14 stillborn babies participated in consultations around the revision of a perinatal mortality audit guideline., Results: Parents shared the decision making. Four decision drivers were identified: parents' preparedness or readiness to make decisions; parental responsibility; concern for possible consequences of an autopsy and the role of health professionals. Each decision driver involved reasons both for and against autopsy. Two decision aftermath were also present: some parents who agreed to an autopsy were dissatisfied with the way the autopsy results were given to them and some parents who did not have an autopsy for their infant expressed some form of regret or uncertainty about the choice they made., Conclusions: To make decisions about autopsy after stillbirth, parents need factual information about autopsy procedures, recognition that there might be fear of blame, an environment of trust, and health services and professionals prepared and skilled for difficult conversations., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Childhood vaccination (also described as immunisation) is an important and effective way to reduce childhood illness and death. However, there are many children who do not receive the recommended vaccines because their parents do not know why vaccination is important, do not understand how, where or when to get their children vaccinated, disagree with vaccination as a public health measure, or have concerns about vaccine safety.Face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about routine childhood vaccination may improve vaccination rates and parental knowledge or understanding of vaccination. Such interventions may describe or explain the practical and logistical factors associated with vaccination, and enable parents to understand the meaning and relevance of vaccination for their family or community., Objectives: To assess the effects of face to face interventions for informing or educating parents about early childhood vaccination on immunisation uptake and parental knowledge., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to July 2012); EMBASE + Embase Classic (OvidSP) (1947 to July 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to July 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2012); Global Health (CAB) (1910 to July 2012); Global Health Library (WHO) (searched July 2012); Google Scholar (searched September 2012), ISI Web of Science (searched September 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles. We searched for ongoing trials in The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched August 2012) and for grey literature in The Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (searched August 2012). We also contacted authors of included studies and experts in the field. There were no language or date restrictions., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs evaluating the effects of face to face interventions delivered to individual parents or groups of parents to inform or educate about early childhood vaccination, compared with control or with another face to face intervention. Early childhood vaccines are all recommended routine childhood vaccines outlined by the World Health Organization, with the exception of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which is delivered to adolescents., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently reviewed database search results for inclusion. Grey literature searches were conducted and reviewed by a single author. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: We included six RCTs and one cluster RCT involving a total of 2978 participants. Three studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries and four were conducted in high-income countries. The cluster RCT did not contribute usable data to the review. The interventions comprised a mix of single-session and multi-session strategies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was low to very low and the studies were at moderate risk of bias overall. All these trials compared face to face interventions directed to individual parents with control.The three studies assessing the effect of a single-session intervention on immunisation status could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity. The overall result is uncertain because the individual study results ranged from no evidence of effect to a significant increase in immunisation.Two studies assessed the effect of a multi-session intervention on immunisation status. These studies were also not pooled due to heterogeneity and the result was very uncertain, ranging from a non-significant decrease in immunisation to no evidence of effect.The two studies assessing the effect of a face to face intervention on knowledge or understanding of vaccination were very uncertain and were not pooled as data from one study were skewed. However, neither study showed evidence of an effect on knowledge scores in the intervention group. Only one study measured the cost of a case management intervention. The estimated additional cost per fully immunised child for the intervention was approximately eight times higher than usual care.The review also considered the following secondary outcomes: intention to vaccinate child, parent experience of intervention, and adverse effects. No adverse effects related to the intervention were measured by any of the included studies, and there were no data on the other outcomes of interest., Authors' Conclusions: The limited evidence available is low quality and suggests that face to face interventions to inform or educate parents about childhood vaccination have little to no impact on immunisation status, or knowledge or understanding of vaccination. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the cost of implementing the intervention, parent intention to vaccinate, parent experience of the intervention, or adverse effects. Given the apparently limited effect of such interventions, it may be feasible and appropriate to incorporate communication about vaccination into a healthcare encounter, rather than conduct it as a separate activity.

Background: Stillbirth remains one of the least understood areas of infant death and accurate data on the causes of stillbirth are the cornerstone of stillbirth prevention. An autopsy examination remains the gold standard post-mortem investigation for stillbirth. However, decisions about post-mortem investigations, particularly autopsy are difficult. The purpose of this review is to examine the effectiveness of methods to help parents who have experienced a stillbirth decide whether to have post-mortem investigations, including whether to have an autopsy performed., Objectives: The primary objectives were a) to examine the effectiveness of interventions to support parents' decisions about autopsy consent after a stillbirth on outcomes for parents, and b) to determine autopsy rates. Secondary objectives were to identify issues related to the acceptability of any interventions to parents and the feasibility of their implementation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (29 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 July 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 24 July 2012), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister (mRCT) (18 September 2012) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP) (18 September 2012). We also searched the websites of the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity (SANDS) and International Stillbirth Alliance (ISA) (18 September 2012) and then subsequently searched the websites of all the ISA member organisations., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions designed specifically to support parents who have experienced a stillbirth make decisions about their options for post-mortem investigations including all investigations after stillbirth compared with usual care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened citations against the selection criteria. , Main Results: No studies meeting the review inclusion criteria were identified. A search of 40 websites associated with supporting parents who experience stillbirth also found little reference to, or information about autopsy or other post-mortem examinations., Authors' Conclusions: Support for parents making decisions about autopsy or other post-mortem examinations after stillbirth must rely on the ad hoc knowledge and experience of those involved at the time.

Objective: Parent engagement in perinatal mortality review meetings following stillbirth may benefit parents and improve patient safety. We investigated perinatal mortality review meeting practices, including the extent of parent engagement, based on self‐reports from healthcare professionals from maternity care facilities in six high‐income countries. Design: Cross‐sectional online survey. Setting: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK and USA. Population: A total of 1104 healthcare professionals, comprising mainly obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives and nurses. Methods: Data were drawn from responses to a survey covering stillbirth‐related topics. Open‐ and closed‐items that focused on 'Data quality on causes of stillbirth' were analysed. Main outcome measures: Healthcare professionals' self‐reported practices around perinatal mortality review meetings following stillbirth. Results: Most clinicians (81.0%) were aware of regular audit meetings to review stillbirth at their maternity facility, although this was true for only 35.5% of US respondents. For the 854 respondents whose facility held regular meetings, less than a third (31.1%) reported some form of parent engagement, and this was usually in the form of one‐way post‐meeting feedback. Across all six countries, only 17.1% of respondents described an explicit approach where parents provided input, received feedback and were represented at meetings. Conclusions: We found no established practice of involving parents in the perinatal mortality review process in six high‐income countries. Parent engagement may hold the key to important lessons for stillbirth prevention and care. Further understanding of approaches, barriers and enablers is warranted. Parent engagement in mortality review after stillbirth is rare, based on data from six countries. We need to understand the barriers. Parent engagement in mortality review after stillbirth is rare, based on data from six countries. We need to understand the barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]