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: 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.)

SARS‐CoV‐2 has had a significant impact on pregnancy outcomes due to the effects of the virus and the altered healthcare environment. Stillbirth has been relatively hidden during the COVID‐19 pandemic, but a clear link between SARS‐CoV‐2 and poor fetal outcome emerged in the Alpha and Delta waves. A small minority of women/birthing people who contracted COVID‐19 developed SARS‐CoV‐2 placentitis. In many reported cases this was linked to intrauterine fetal death, although there are cases of delivery just before imminent fetal demise and we shall discuss how some cases are sub‐clinical. What is surprising, is that SARS‐CoV‐2 placentitis is often not associated with severe maternal COVID‐19 infection and this makes it difficult to predict. The worst outcomes seem to be with diffuse placental disease which occurs within 21 days of COVID‐19 diagnosis. Poor outcomes are often pre‐dated by reduced fetal movements but are not associated with ultrasound changes. In some cases, there has also been maternal thrombocytopenia, or coagulation abnormalities, which may provide a clue as to which pregnancies are at risk of fetal demise if a further variant of concern is to emerge. In future, multidisciplinary collaboration and cross‐boundary working must be prioritised, to identify quickly such a phenomenon and provide clinicians with clear guidance for reducing fetal death and associated poor outcomes. While we wait to see if COVID‐19 brings a future variant of concern, we must focus on appropriate future management of women who have had SARS‐CoV‐2 placentitis. As a placental condition with an infectious aetiology, SARS‐CoV‐placentitis is unlikely to recur in a subsequent pregnancy and thus a measured approach to subsequent pregnancy management is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]