Search

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.)

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.)

Objective: When a formal review of care takes places after the death of a baby, parents are largely unaware it takes place and are often not meaningfully involved in the review process. Parent engagement in the process is likely to be essential for a successful review and to improve patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate an intervention process of parental engagement in perinatal mortality review (PNMR) and to identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation., Design: Mixed-methods study of parents' engagement in PNMR., Setting: Single tertiary maternity unit in the UK., Participants: Bereaved parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs)., Interventions: Parent engagement in the PNMR (intervention) was based on principles derived through national consensus and qualitative research with parents, HCPs and stakeholders in the UK., Outcomes: Recruitment rates, bereaved parents and HCPs' perceptions., Results: Eighty-one per cent of bereaved parents approached (13/16) agreed to participate in the study. Two focus groups with bereaved parents (n=11) and HCP (n=7) were carried out postimplementation to investigate their perceptions of the process.Overarching findings were improved dialogue and continuity of care with parents, and improvements in the PNMR process and patient safety. Bereaved parents agreed that engagement in the PNMR process was invaluable and helped them in their grieving. HCP perceived that parent involvement improved the review process and lessons learnt from the deaths; information to understand the impact of aspects of care on the baby's death were often only found in the parents' recollections., Conclusions: Parental engagement in the PNMR process is achievable and useful for parents and HCP alike, and critically can improve patient safety and future care for mothers and babies. To learn and prevent perinatal deaths effectively, all hospitals should give parents the option to engage with the review of their baby's death., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors include the chair and members of the national Perinatal Mortality Review Tool (PMRT) group., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To develop global consensus on a set of evidence-based core principles for bereavement care after stillbirth., Methods: A modified policy-Delphi methodology was used to consult international stakeholders and healthcare workers with experience in stillbirth between September 2017 and October 2018. Five sequential rounds involved two expert stakeholder meetings and three internet-based surveys, including a global internet-based survey targeted at healthcare workers in a wide range of settings., Results: Initially, 23 expert stakeholders considered 43 evidence-based themes derived from systematic reviews, identifying 10 core principles. The global survey received 236 responses from participants in 26 countries, after which nine principles met a priori criteria for inclusion. The final stakeholder meeting and internet-based survey of all participants confirmed consensus on eight core principles. Highest quality bereavement care should be enabled through training of healthcare staff to reduce stigma and establish respectful care, including acknowledgement and support for grief responses, and provision for physical and psychologic needs. Women and families should be supported to make informed choices, including those concerning their future reproductive health., Conclusion: Consensus was established for eight principles for stillbirth bereavement care. Further work should explore implementation and involve the voices of women and families globally., (© 2020 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Background: The perinatal mortality review meeting that takes place within the hospital following a stillbirth or neonatal death enables clinicians to learn vital lessons to improve care for women and their families for the future. Recent evidence suggests that parents are unaware that a formal review following the death of their baby takes place. Many would welcome the opportunity to feedback into the meeting itself. Parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review meeting has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, drive improvements in patient safety and promote an open culture within healthcare. Yet evidence on the feasibility of involving bereaved parents in the review process is lacking. This paper describes the protocol for the Parents' Active Role and Engangement iN the review of their Stillbirth/perinatal death study (PARENTS 2) , whereby healthcare professionals' and stakeholders' perceptions of parental involvement will be investigated, and parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review will be piloted and evaluated at two hospitals., Methods and Analysis: We will investigate perceptions of parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process by conducting four focus groups. A three-round modified Delphi technique will be employed to gain a consensus on principles of parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process. We will use three sequential rounds, including a national consensus meeting workshop with experts in stillbirth, neonatal death and bereavement care, and a two-stage anonymous online questionnaire. We will pilot a new perinatal mortality review process with parental involvement over a 6-month study period. The impact of the new process will be evaluated by assessing parents' experiences of their care and parents' and staff perceptions of their involvement in the process by conducting further focus groups and using a Parent Generated Index questionnaire., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has ethical approval from the UK Health Research Authority. We will disseminate the findings through national and international conferences and international peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Following a perinatal death, a formal standardised multi-disciplinary review should take place, to learn from the death of a baby and facilitate improvements in future care. It has been recommended that bereaved parents should be offered the opportunity to give feedback on the care they have received and integrate this feedback into the perinatal mortality review process. However, the MBRRACE-UK Perinatal Confidential Enquiry (2015) found that only one in 20 cases parental concerns were included in the review. Although guidance suggests parental opinion should be sought, little evidence exists on how this may be incorporated into the perinatal mortality review process. The purpose of the PARENTS study was to investigate bereaved parents' views on involvement in the perinatal mortality review process., Methods: A semi-structured focus group of 11 bereaved parents was conducted in South West England. A purposive sampling technique was utilised to recruit a diverse sample of women and their partners who had experienced a perinatal death more than 6 months prior to the study. A six-stage thematic analysis was followed to explore parental perceptions and expectations of the perinatal mortality review process., Results: Four over-arching themes emerged from the analysis: transparency; flexibility combined with specificity; inclusivity; and a positive approach. It was evident that the majority of parents were supportive of their involvement in the perinatal mortality review process and they wanted to know the outcome of the meeting. It emerged that an individualised approach should be taken to allow flexibility on when and how they could contribute to the process. The emotional aspects of care should be considered as well as the clinical care. Parents identified that the whole care pathway should be examined during the review including antenatal, postnatal, and neonatal and community based care. They agreed that there should be an opportunity for parents to give feedback on both good and poor aspects of their care., Conclusion: Parents were unaware that a review of their baby's death took place in the hospital. Parental involvement in the perinatal mortality review process would promote an open culture in the healthcare system and learning from adverse events including deaths. Further research should focus on designing and evaluating a perinatal mortality review process where parental feedback will be integral.

Third-trimester stillbirth affects approximately 2.6 million women worldwide each year. Although most stillbirths (98%) occur in low- and middle-income countries, most of the research on the impact of stillbirth and bereavement care has come from high-income countries. The impact of stillbirth ranges from stigma to disenfranchised grief, broken relationships, clinical depression, chronic pain, substance use, increased use of health services, employment difficulties, and debt. Appropriate bereavement care following a stillbirth is essential to minimise the negative socio-economic impact on parents and their families. This article presents the best practice points in stillbirth bereavement care, including taking an individualised and flexible approach. The latest published research, guidelines, and best practice points from high-income countries will be used and will highlight the gaps in the research which urgently need to be addressed. Research and investment in appropriate, respectful aftercare is needed to minimise the negative impact for parents., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]