Search

There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support). 3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support: a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive); b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts); c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person); d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries.We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). 'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points. There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants. We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment. We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country. It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points. For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.

BackgroundThere is significant overdiagnosis of milk allergy in young children in some countries, leading to unnecessary use of specialized formula. This guidance, developed by experts without commercial ties to the formula industry, aims to reduce milk allergy overdiagnosis and support carers of children with suspected milk allergy.MethodsDelphi study involving two rounds of anonymous consensus building and an open meeting between January and July 2021. Seventeen experts in general practice, nutrition, midwifery, health visiting, lactation support and relevant areas of paediatrics participated, located in Europe, North America, Middle East, Africa, Australia and Asia. Five authors of previous milk allergy guidelines and seven parents provided feedback.FindingsParticipants agreed on 38 essential recommendations through consensus. Recommendations highlighted the importance of reproducibility and specificity for diagnosing milk allergy in children with acute or delayed symptoms temporally related to milk protein ingestion; and distinguished between children directly consuming milk protein and exclusively breastfed infants. Consensus was reached that maternal dietary restriction is not usually necessary to manage milk allergy, and that for exclusively breastfed infants with chronic symptoms, milk allergy diagnosis should only be considered in specific, rare circumstances. Consensus was reached that milk allergy diagnosis does not need to be considered for stool changes, aversive feeding or occasional spots of blood in stool, if there is no temporal relationship with milk protein ingestion. When compared with previous guidelines, these consensus recommendations resulted in more restrictive criteria for detecting milk allergy and a more limited role for maternal dietary exclusions and specialized formula.InterpretationThese new milk allergy recommendations from non-conflicted, multidisciplinary experts advise narrower criteria, more prominent support for breastfeeding and less use of specialized formula, compared with current guidelines.

First paragraph: The Final Report of the Ockenden Review examined the care of 1486 families who experienced adverse outcomes in one hospital Trust in England, the majority of whom received care between 2000 and 2020 (Ockenden 2022). It describes the damaging outcomes and experiences caused by poor care for women and babies in pregnancy, labour and birth. Multiple individual actions recommended by the report are resulting in immediate and extensive changes across the maternity services in England. The report findings are relevant across the whole UK, and to international efforts to improve safety and quality in maternal and newborn care systems.

Background The Indian government has committed to implementing high-quality midwifery care to achieve universal health coverage and reduce the burden of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. There are multiple challenges, including introducing a new cadre of midwives educated to international standards and integrating midwifery into the health system with a defined scope of practice. The objective of this review was to examine the facilitators and barriers to providing high-quality midwifery care in India. Methods We searched 15 databases for studies relevant to the provision of midwifery care in India. The findings were mapped to two global quality frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators to providing high-quality midwifery care in India. Results Thirty-two studies were included. Key barriers were lack of competence of maternity care providers, lack of legislation recognizing midwives as autonomous professionals and limited scope of practice, social and economic barriers to women accessing services, and lack of basic health system infrastructure. Facilitators included providing more hands-on experience during training, monitoring and supervision of staff, utilizing midwives to their full scope of practice with good referral systems, improving women's experiences of maternity care, and improving health system infrastructure. Conclusions The findings can be used to inform policy and practice. Overcoming the identified barriers will be critical to achieving the Government of India's plans to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality through the introduction of a new cadre of midwives. This is unlikely to be effective until the facilitators described are in place.

Despite strong policy support in Scotland, United Kingdom, key challenges to scaling up promotion, protection and support for breastfeeding remain. These include low breastfeeding rates and socioeconomic and regional inequalities. The Becoming Breastfeeding-Friendly (BBF) process was implemented to highlight actions that could address these challenges. The Scottish BBF committee employed an iterative process of documentary analysis and evidence reviews supplemented by 18 interviews with key informants. The data were mapped to BBF benchmarks and each gear was scored accordingly. Nineteen draft recommendations addressing policy and practice gaps were prioritised. Ten recommendations were grouped into eight themes, which cross-cut the BBF gears. The process took place from May 2018 to May 2019. The overall BBF Index score for Scotland was 2.4 indicating a strong scaling-up environment for breastfeeding. Five gears were assessed as strong gear strength, and the remaining three were judged as moderate gear strength. Three recommendation themes illuminate strengths and areas for development. The theme 'reinforcing political will' showed effective leadership, strong policies and significant investment in supporting breastfeeding and highlights actions to sustain this. The theme 'strengthening and coordinating breastfeeding messages' revealed a need for coordination between government, health services and the third sector. The theme 'promoting a supportive return to work environment' highlighted that, while employment legislation is not devolved to the Scottish government, action could be taken by employers to optimise an enabling environment for breastfeeding. The BBF process identified strengths and triggered actions to enhance breastfeeding promotion, protection and support in Scotland.

Migrant and BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) groups are more likely to suffer from poorer health and oral health outcomes in general. In Dundee, 10.6% of the population identified as an ethnic minority. However, they have been underrepresented in research and health promotion interventions for decades. This reinforces the importance of using participatory research to capture the realities and health needs of these groups to inform policy and interventions addressing health inequalities. The research project ‘Engaging People from Ethic Minority Groups in Health and Oral Health Research’ aimed to engage individuals from migrant and BME groups and researchers who work with these groups to share their experiences, views and perceived challenges and opportunities to improve migrant and BME groups’ research participation. As a specific objective we wanted to identify effective strategies to engage these socially excluded groups in health and oral health research. This infographic is one of the research outcomes in this project. It was co-designed with migrant and BME women living in Dundee to explore their experience and opinions of participation in health and oral health research. we hope this resource will contribute to improve the inclusivity and to maximise participation of research for a wide range of migrant and BME groups.

The Covid‐19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted. Twenty‐nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta‐analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4–8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4–8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4–8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face‐to‐face care.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Objective: There is evidence that continuity of care - increasingly a focus of maternity care policy in the UK - contributes to improved outcomes. However, uncertainty remains about which models of care are most effective in which circumstances, and why this is. A plausible explanation is grounded in the idea that the continuity elements of care contribute to and reinforce best quality care. The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework describes the components and characteristics of quality care. As a first step in developing a maternity care evaluation toolkit, we adapted this Framework to see if it could be used to evaluate perceptions and experiences of different models of care. Design: A qualitative comparative enquiry using focus groups. From a six-phase thematic analysis, we first derived then compared the principal sub-themes from the focus groups and mapped these to the original Framework. Setting: Two health boards in Scotland. Participants: Pregnant women, new mothers, midwives and obstetricians who had experience of various models of maternity care. This paper reports findings from the pregnant women and new mothers. Results: These are presented in two parts: the seven focus groups with pregnant women and new mothers are reported in this paper; the five focus groups with midwives and obstetricians in our accompanying paper. Those using the maternity services had experience of caseloading midwifery, ‘modified universal provision’ and ‘high risk’ models of maternity care. While women from all groups shared certain perspectives, those with experience of caseloading midwifery were consistently positive, reporting positive relationships, tailored care and effective communication. Women experiencing other models of care, especially the modified universal provision model, tended to report more negative relational experiences: lack of information, lack of tailored care, and anxiety and confusion. Timing of the focus group (i.e. during pregnancy or after the birth) appeared to make little difference to responses. Mapping responses to the Framework's characteristics of care was straightforward; mapping also showed how the Framework's components of care are interlinked. Key conclusions: Our adaptation of the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework as a data collection tool allowed us to compare women with experience of different models of care, and relational factors were identifiable in many responses. Positive responses were found in all models but were most emphasised in the caseloading midwifery model, suggesting that the experience of caseloading continuity and its relational elements is highly valued. While further work is required to identify if this can be linked to improved clinical outcomes, we have established that the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework can be adapted as an exploratory tool for assessing perceptions and experiences of maternity care.

Background Excess body weight has been consistently associated with colorectal, breast, endometrial, esophageal, gall bladder, pancreatic and kidney cancers. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the proportion of total and site-specific cancers attributable to excess body weight in adults in Alberta in 2012. Methods We estimated the proportions of attributable cancers using population attributable risk. Risk estimates were obtained from recent meta-analyses, and exposure prevalence estimates were obtained from the Canadian Community Health Survey. People with a body mass index of 25.00-29.99 kg/m2 and of 30 kg/m2 or more were categorized as overweight and obese, respectively. Results About 14%-47% of men and 9%-35% of women in Alberta were classified as either overweight or obese; the proportion increased with increasing age for both sexes. We estimate that roughly 17% and 12% of obesity-related cancers among men and women, respectively, could be attributed to excess body weight in Alberta in 2012. The heaviest absolute burden in terms of number of cases was seen for breast cancer among women and for colorectal cancer among men. Overall, about 5% of all cancers in adults in Alberta in 2012 were estimated to be attributable to excess body weight in 2000-2003. Interpretation Excess body weight contributes to a substantial proportion of cases of cancers associated with overweight and obesity annually in Alberta. Strategies to improve energy imbalance and reduce the proportion of obese and overweight Albertans may have a notable impact on cancer incidence in the future.

Purpose: The authors analyzed the demographics of potential future physiotherapists to determine whether they were representative of the Canadian population. The specific objectives were to examine selected demographic variables from all applicants to and students in Ontario English-language Master of Physical Therapy programmes in admission cycles 2004–2014, inclusive, and to analyze the results as compared with Canadian population data. Method: Anonymized applicant records (n=14,135) were obtained for admission cycles 2004–2014, inclusive. Variables examined for applicants and students included their gender, geographical location from Canadian and international regions, Aboriginal identity, and immigrant status. A descriptive analysis of counts and proportions was conducted for all variables. Results: The majority of applicants were women (70%), from southern Ontario (73%), and Canadian born (82%). Aboriginal and rural applicants made up small proportions of the applicant pool (1% and 12%, respectively). The number of applicants from British Columbia was proportionally high relative to those from other Canadian provinces. Conclusion: Although Ontario's physiotherapy education programmes remain female dominated, the demographics of applicants and students are otherwise mostly representative of the diverse Canadian population, although very low in the number of Aboriginal peoples. Further research is needed to understand the diversity and composition of the Canadian physiotherapy workforce.

Insufficient fibre consumption has been associated with a increased risk of colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to estimate the proportion and absolute number of cancers in Alberta that could be attributed to insufficient fibre consumption in 2012.The number and proportion of colorectal cancers in Alberta attributable to insufficient fibre consumption were estimated using the population attributable risk. Relative risks were obtained from the World Cancer Research Fund's 2011 Continuous Update Project on colorectal cancer, and the prevalence of insufficient fibre consumption (23 g/d) was estimated using dietary data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project. Age- and sex-specific colorectal cancer incidence data for 2012 were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry.Between 66% and 67% of men and between 73% and 78% of women reported a diet with insufficient fibre consumption. Population attributable risk estimates for colorectal cancer were marginally higher in men, ranging from 6.3% to 6.8% across age groups, whereas in women they ranged from 5.0% to 5.5%. Overall, 6.0% of colorectal cancers or 0.7% of all cancers in Alberta in 2012 were estimated to be attributable to insufficient fibre consumption.Insufficient fibre consumption accounted for 6.0% of colorectal cancers in Alberta in 2012. Increasing fibre consumption in Alberta has the potential to reduce to the future burden of colorectal cancer in the province.

BackgroundMany infants worldwide are not breastfeeding according to WHO recommendations and this impacts on the health of women and children. Increasing breastfeeding is identified as a priority area supported by current policy targets. However, interventions are complex and multi-component and it is unclear which elements of interventions are most effective to increase breastfeeding in which settings. Breastfeeding counselling is often part of complex interventions but evidence is lacking on the specific effect of counselling interventions on breastfeeding practices. The aim of this systematic review is to examine evidence on effectiveness of breastfeeding counselling to inform global guidelines.MethodsA systematic search was conducted of six electronic databases in January 2018. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding counselling with no breastfeeding counselling or different formulations of counselling were included if they measured breastfeeding practices between birth and 24 months after birth.ResultsFrom the 5180 records identified in searches and a further 11 records found by hand searching, 63 studies were included. Of these, 48 were individually-randomised trials and 15 were cluster-randomised trials. A total of 69 relevant comparisons were reported involving 33,073 women. There was a significant effect of counselling interventions on any breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (Relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) and 6 months (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Greater effects were found on exclusive breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.87) and 6 months (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78, 0.91). Counselling delivered at least four times postnatally is more effective than counselling delivered antenatally only and/or fewer than four times. Evidence was mostly of low quality due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials and high heterogeneity.ConclusionsBreastfeeding counselling is an effective public health intervention to increase rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding. Breastfeeding counselling should be provided face-to-face, and in addition, may be provided by telephone, both antenatally and postnatally, to all pregnant women and mothers with young children. To inform scale-up globally there is a need to further understand the elements of breastfeeding interventions such as counselling and their effectiveness in different contexts and circumstances.Study registrationThis systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42018086494).

In 2016, the World Health Organization commissioned 21 relevant systematic reviews to inform a global update of the Baby Friendly initiative Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding. This article summarises three of the reviews: Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies ( McFadden et al, 2017 ); Interventions for encouraging women to start breastfeeding ( Balogun et al, 2016 ); and Education and training of healthcare staff in the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to work effectively with breastfeeding women ( Gavine et al, 2017 ). The article will go on to examine the implications for practice globally.

Background The provision of midwife-led care, the model of care in which midwives are the lead professionals for women and newborn infants across the continuum, has been shown to be effective in improving outcomes for women and newborn infants, but predominantly based on research in high-income countries. Objective To explore how midwife-led care is provided in low- and middle-income countries. The specific question was to examine how, where and by whom has midwife-led care been provided in low-and-middle-income countries? Design: An integrative literature review was undertaken and included studies using a range of methods. Data sources A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library and hand-searching of relevant journals and website of International Organizations and relevant grey-literature. Review methods After applying inclusion criteria, systematic sifting and quality assessment processes, data were extracted from relevant studies. The software program NVivo was used to initially extract the findings and results of the studies. Coded data from primary data sources were iteratively compared, using patterns and themes as per the conceptual framework of the WHO on skilled health personnel providing care for childbearing women and newborn infants, including an analysis of the competent provider, standards of practice and the enabling environment. Findings Of a total of 3324 articles retrieved, 31 studies were included. There were 18 qualitative, nine quantitative and four mixed method studies with different levels of quality from five of six global regions published between 1997 and 2017. In these studies, midwife-led care was not found to be a standardised model in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and there was limited evidence on the effectiveness of midwife-led care in these countries. Care provided across the continuum was however described in most studies. Standards of practice in education, regulation and training varied widely as did the enabling environment in which midwife-led care took place. Conclusion and implication for practice and research Midwife-led care is provided across low- and middle-income countries but lack of enabling factors limits the quality of care that midwives can provide. Further research about this model of care is needed to understand the ingredients of successful implementation, their effectiveness and sustainability.

Objective The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework describes the components and characteristics of quality care and emphasises relational and continuity elements. Continuity of care is increasingly a focus of maternity care policy in the United Kingdom. While some outcomes have been shown to be improved, there is uncertainty about why certain models of care are more effective. Our overall objective is to develop a maternity care evaluation toolkit which incorporates this Framework along with other outcome evaluations. An initial step in developing this toolkit was to use the adapted Framework to evaluate perceptions and experiences of maternity care. Our specific objective in this study was to test this adapted Framework in a series of focus groups with key stakeholders, and to compare findings between different groups. Findings related to service users (pregnant women and new mothers) are reported in our accompanying paper; this paper presents findings from focus groups with service providers (midwives and obstetricians), and then compares user and provider perspectives. Design A qualitative comparative enquiry involving three focus groups with 26 midwives (eight newly qualified; eight working in a community midwifery unit; and ten senior tertiary-based) and two focus groups with twelve obstetricians of all grades. We used a six-phase thematic analysis to derive then compare the focus groups’ principal sub-themes; we then mapped these to the original Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework and compared these service providers’ responses with those from the pregnant women and new mothers. Setting Two health boards in Scotland. Participants Midwives and obstetricians who had experience of various models of maternity care. Findings There were significant areas of overlap in their perceptions of providing maternity care. All groups reported ‘limited resources and time’; the community midwifery unit and senior midwives and one group of obstetricians provided a critique of the system. Achieving tailored care was acknowledged as a problem by the senior midwives and one group of obstetricians. Only obstetricians discussed strategies for improvement. The newly qualified midwives were most positive in their responses. There was both overlap and contrast when comparing the views of service users and providers. We found most agreement when participants discussed some of the Framework's characteristics of care in negative terms, such as (in) accessible care, (lack of) adequate resources, and (absence of) tailored care. Key Conclusions Being able firstly to map the participants’ responses to the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework, and then to identify strengths and gaps in the provision of quality maternity care, suggests to us that the Framework, derived as it is from a comprehensive analysis of the global evidence on quality care, can indeed be used to inform an evaluation toolkit. While aware that we cannot generalise from this limited qualitative study, we are currently undertaking similar work in other countries by which we hope to confirm our findings and further develop the toolkit.

Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT) are socially excluded groups where evidence for improving health is weakest. Although GRT communities are diverse, and robust evidence of health needs is lacking, there is consensus that GRT in the UK have poorer health and lower life expectancy than the general population and other disadvantaged groups. Reasons why GRT are vulnerable to poor health outcomes include poor living conditions, high rates of homelessness, low educational achievement, social exclusion, widespread prejudice and discrimination and barriers to accessing healthcare. These multiple factors, alongside poor quality care that does not meet needs, may lead to low expectations and mistrust of health services. Trust in services and personnel is associated with increased utilisation of healthcare, improved health behaviours and quality of care. Community engagement strategies have the potential to enhance trust and ensure services are tailored to the needs of specific populations. This multi-component study aimed to strengthen evidence on how to improve uptake and delivery of health services and thereby reduce health inequalities for GRT.

© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Despite decades of considerable economic investment in improving the health of families and newborns world-wide, aspirations for maternal and newborn health have yet to be attained in many regions. The global turn toward recognizing the importance of positive experiences of pregnancy, intrapartum and postnatal care, and care in the first weeks of life, while continuing to work to minimize adverse outcomes, signals a critical change in the maternal and newborn health care conversation and research prioritization. This paper presents “different research questions” drawing on evidence presented in the 2014 Lancet Series on Midwifery and a research prioritization study conducted with the World Health Organization. The results indicated that future research investment in maternal and newborn health should be on “right care,” which is quality care that is tailored to individuals, weighs benefits and harms, is person-centered, works across the whole continuum of care, advances equity, and is informed by evidence, including cost-effectiveness. Three inter-related research themes were identified: examination and implementation of models of care that enhance both well-being and safety; investigating and optimizing physiological, psychological, and social processes in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period; and development and validation of outcome measures that capture short and longer term well-being. New, transformative research approaches should account for the underlying social and political-economic mechanisms that enhance or constrain the well-being of women, newborns, families, and societies. Investment in research capacity and capability building across all settings is critical, but especially in those countries that bear the greatest burden of poor outcomes. We believe this call to action for investment in the three research priorities identified in this paper has the potential to achieve these benefits and to realize the ambitions of Sustainable Development Goal Three of good health and well-being for all.

Background Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people represent the most disadvantaged minority groups in Europe, having the poorest health outcomes. This systematic review addressed the question of how Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people access healthcare and what are the best ways to enhance their engagement with health services. Methods Searches were conducted in 21 electronic databases complemented by a focussed Google search. Studies were included if they had sufficient focus on Gypsy, Roma or Traveller populations; reported data pertinent to healthcare service use or engagement and were published in English from 2000 to 2015. Study findings were analyzed thematically and a narrative synthesis reported. Results Ninety-nine studies from 32 countries were included, covering a range of health services. Nearly one-half of the presented findings related to primary healthcare services. Reported barriers to health service usage related to organisation of health systems, discrimination, culture and language, health literacy, service-user attributes and economic barriers. Promising engagement strategies included specialist roles, outreach services, dedicated services, raising health awareness, handheld records, training for staff and collaborative working. Conclusion This review provides evidence that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller populations across Europe struggle to exercise their right to healthcare on account of multiple barriers; and related to other determinants of disadvantage such as low literacy levels and experiences of discrimination. Some promising strategies to overcome barriers were reported but the evidence is weak; therefore, rigorous evaluations of interventions to improve access to and engagement with health services for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people are needed.

We conducted a meta-analysis of the association between leisure time physical activity (LTPA) and risk of pancreatic cancer to update previous analyses in light of newly published studies, to examine subgroups of interest and potential sources of heterogeneity. We searched the PubMed and MEDLINE databases for studies until February 2015. Study information was collected using a standardized form to abstract relevant data on study design, number of cases, participant and study characteristics, assessment of LTPA, risk estimates, and adjustments for confounding by two independent abstractors. We used random-effects models to pool estimates from included studies of lowest versus highest comparison of LTPA. The search identified 26 studies eligible for inclusion into the meta-analysis. The combined summary risk estimate was [relative risk (RR), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.96]. There was evidence of heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 22.1%, Pheterogeneity = 0.130). Some of the heterogeneity could be explained by study design, with stronger protective effects observed among case–control studies (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59–0.81) compared with cohort studies (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91–1.02). Across study designs, age of population was a source of heterogeneity, with stronger effects observed among younger (

Background Alcohol consumption has been associated with risk of oral cavity/pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, liver, colorectal and breast cancers. The purpose of this study was to estimate the proportion and total number of these cancers in Alberta in 2012 attributable to alcohol consumption. Methods We estimated cancers attributable to alcohol consumption in adults in Alberta using population attributable risk calculations. Relative risks were obtained from recent meta-analyses, and alcohol consumption in Alberta was quantified with the use of data from the Canadian Community Health Survey. We obtained age-, site- and sex-specific cancer incidence data for 2012 from the Alberta Cancer Registry. The impact of potential underestimation of alcohol consumption in Canadian Community Health Survey data was evaluated with the use of per-capita alcohol sales data from Statistics Canada. Results Proportions of cancers attributable to alcohol consumption at individual cancer sites were estimated to be as low as 5.1% (liver) and as high as 19.9% (oral cavity/pharynx) among men and as low as 2.1% (liver) and as high as 7.6% (oral cavity/pharynx) among women in Alberta. The total number of alcohol-attributable cancer cases was highest for common cancers (colorectal, female breast), whereas at individual cancer sites, population attributable risks were highest for upper aerodigestive tract cancers. A total of 4.8% of alcohol-associated cancers (1.6% of all cancers) in Alberta could be attributed to alcohol consumption. After adjustment for recorded alcohol consumption, our estimates of population attributable risk increased to 10.7% of alcohol-associated cancers and 3.5% of all cancers. Interpretation Alcohol consumption is estimated to account for 1.6%-3.5% of total cancer cases in Alberta. Given that no level of alcohol consumption is considered safe with respect to cancer risk, strategies to reduce alcohol consumption have the potential to reduce Alberta's cancer burden.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1186-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In this first paper in a series of four papers on midwifery, we aimed to examine, comprehensively and systematically, the contribution midwifery can make to the quality of care of women and infants globally, and the role of midwives and others in providing midwifery care. Drawing on international definitions and current practice, we mapped the scope of midwifery. We then developed a framework for quality maternal and newborn care using a mixed-methods approach including synthesis of findings from systematic reviews of women's views and experiences, effective practices, and maternal and newborn care providers. The framework differentiates between what care is provided and how and by whom it is provided, and describes the care and services that childbearing women and newborn infants need in all settings. We identified more than 50 short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes that could be improved by care within the scope of midwifery; reduced maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, reduced stillbirth and preterm birth, decreased number of unnecessary interventions, and improved psychosocial and public health outcomes. Midwifery was associated with more efficient use of resources and improved outcomes when provided by midwives who were educated, trained, licensed, and regulated. Our findings support a system-level shift from maternal and newborn care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all. This change includes preventive and supportive care that works to strengthen women's capabilities in the context of respectful relationships, is tailored to their needs, focuses on promotion of normal reproductive processes, and in which first-line management of complications and accessible emergency treatment are provided when needed. Midwifery is pivotal to this approach, which requires effective interdisciplinary teamwork and integration across facility and community settings. Future planning for maternal and newborn care systems can benefit from using the quality framework in planning workforce development and resource allocation.

BACKGROUND Consumption of red and processed meats has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to estimate the proportion and absolute number of cancers in Alberta in 2012 that could be attributed to the consumption of red and processed meat. METHODS The number and proportion of colorectal cancers in Alberta that were attributable to red and processed meat consumption were estimated using population attributable risk. Relative risks were obtained from the World Cancer Research Fund's 2011 Continuous Update Project on Colorectal Cancer, and the prevalence of red and processed meat consumption was estimated using dietary data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project. Age- and sex-specific colorectal cancer incidence data for 2012 were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. RESULTS Among participants in Alberta's Tomorrow Project, 41%-61% of men and 14%-25% of women consumed more than 500 g of red and processed meat per week, which exceeds World Cancer Research Fund cancer prevention guidelines. For red meat consumption, population attributable risks for colorectal cancer were substantially higher for men (13.6%-17.9%) than for women (1.6%-2.1%). For processed meat consumption, the population attributable risks were also higher for men (3.2%-4.8%) than for women (1.5%-2.1%). Overall, about 12% of colorectal cancers, or 1.5% of all cancers, in Alberta in 2012 were attributable to the consumption of red and processed meat. INTERPRETATION Red and processed meat consumption is estimated to acount for about 12% of colorectal cancers in Alberta. Decreasing its consumption has the potential to reduce to Alberta's cancer burden.

Background Gypsy/Travellers have poor health and experience discrimination alongside structural and cultural barriers when accessing health services and consequently may mistrust those services. Our study aims to investigate which approaches to community engagement are most likely to be effective at enhancing trust between Gypsy/Travellers and mainstream health services. Methods This multi-method 30-month study, commenced in June 2015, and comprises four stages.Three related reviews: a) systematic review of Gypsy/Travellers’ access to health services; b) systematic review of reviews of how trust has been conceptualised within healthcare; c) realist synthesis of community engagement approaches to enhance trust and increase Gypsy/Travellers’ participation in health services. The reviews will consider any economic literature;Online consultation with health and social care practitioners, and civil society organisations on existing engagement activities, including perceptions of barriers and good practice;Four in-depth case studies of different Gypsy/Traveller communities, focusing on maternity, early years and child dental health services. The case studies include the views of 32–48 mothers of pre-school children, 32–40 healthcare providers and 8–12 informants from third sector organisations.Two stakeholder workshops exploring whether policy options are realistic, sustainable and replicable. Case study data will be analysed thematically informed by the evaluative framework derived from the realist synthesis in stage one. The main outputs will be: a) an evaluative framework of Gypsy/Travellers’ engagement with health services; b) recommendations for policy and practice; c) evidence on which to base future implementation strategies including estimation of costs. Discussion Our novel multi-method study seeks to provide recommendations for policy and practice that have potential to improve uptake and delivery of health services, and to reduce lifetime health inequalities for Gypsy/Travellers. The findings may have wider resonance for other marginalised populations. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed. Trial registration Prospero registration for literature reviews: CRD42015021955 and CRD42015021950 UKCRN reference: 20036

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.

Background Maternity services struggle to provide culturally appropriate care that meets the needs of women from diverse populations. Problems include simplistic understandings of ethnicity and the role of culture in women’s lives, and stereotypes held by health practitioners. Objective To explore the extent to which cultural context makes a difference to experiences of breast-feeding support for women of Bangladeshi origin and to consider the implications for the provision of culturally appropriate care. Methods The study comprised individual interviews with 23 women of Bangladeshi origin and four health service managers, and focus group discussions with 28 health practitioners between February and December 2008. Participants were recruited from four localities in northern England. Results Women’s rich descriptions of various facets of their identities were in contrast to practitioners’ representations of women of Bangladeshi origin as homogenous. Practitioners did not recognize when the needs of women of Bangladeshi origin were similar to those of the majority white population, or where cultural context made a difference to their experiences of breast-feeding and breast-feeding support. Some practitioners used cultural stereotypes which, combined with organizational constraints, resulted in services not meeting many of the women’s needs. Conclusions Implications for education, policy and practice include the need for training of health practitioners to work with diverse populations, implementing evidence-based practice and providing an organizational context which supports practitioners to respond to diversity without using cultural stereotypes.

Breastfeeding, by improving health outcomes and life chances for women and children, is a key strategy for addressing health inequalities. National evidence-based public health recommendations for breastfeeding exist in the UK ( NICE (2008) Improving the nutrition of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers and children in low-income households. NICE public health guidance 11. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). The need to tailor interventions to the needs of diverse disadvantaged population groups is an overarching principle informing these recommendations. However, there is little evidence on how to achieve such tailored services. This qualitative paper examines the breastfeeding experiences of 14 grandmothers, 23 women of Bangladeshi origin and 28 health practitioners to illuminate how public health recommendations can be modified for diverse populations. The findings suggested that while many of the women’s needs were similar to the majority population, much current breastfeeding support is not culturally sensitive. These findings were used to interrogate barriers to implementation of national public health recommendations to promote and support breastfeeding for women and babies from ethnically diverse communities. These included services that do not consider women’s individual needs and expectations, and practitioner stereotypes and assumptions. In addition to informing recommendations for service provision and the education of health practitioners, this analysis offers an example of using qualitative research to scrutinise how national public health recommendations might work for different population groups.

ObjectiveTo develop policy and public health recommendations for implementation at all levels by individuals and organisations working in, or related to, the field of breast-feeding promotion in developed country settings, where breast-feeding rates remain low.DesignTwo research phases, comprising (i) an assessment of the formal evidence base in developed country settings and (ii) a consultation with UK-based practitioners, service managers and commissioners, and representatives of service users. The evidence base included three systematic reviews and an Evidence Briefing. One hundred and ten studies evaluating an intervention in developed country settings were assessed for quality and awarded an overall quality rating. Studies with a poor quality rating were excluded. The resulting seventy studies examined twenty-five types of intervention for breast-feeding promotion. These formed the basis of the second consultation phase to develop the evidence-based interventions into recommendations for practice, which comprised (i) pilot consultation, (ii) electronic consultation, (iii) fieldwork meetings and (iv) workshops. Draft findings were synthesised for two rounds of stakeholder review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.ResultsTwenty-five recommendations emerged within three complementary and necessary categories, i.e. public health policy, mainstream clinical practice and local interventions.ConclusionsThe need for national policy directives was clearly identified as a priority to address many of the barriers experienced by practitioners when trying to work across sectors, organisations and professional groups. Routine implementation of the WHO/UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative across hospital and community services was recommended as core to breast-feeding promotion in the UK. A local mix of complementary interventions is also required.

Background Guidance based on a systematic assessment of the evidence base has become a fundamental tool in the cycle of evidence-based practice and policy internationally. The process of moving from the formal evidence base derived from research studies to the formation and agreement of recommendations is however acknowledged to be problematic, especially in public health; and the involvement of practitioners, service commissioners and service users in that process is both important and methodologically challenging. Aim To test a structured process of developing evidence-based recommendations in public health while involving a broad constituency of practitioners, service commissioners and service user representatives. Methods As part of the development of national public health recommendations to promote and support breastfeeding in England, the methodological challenges of involving stakeholders were examined and addressed. There were three main stages: (i) an assessment of the formal evidence base (210 studies graded); (ii) electronic and fieldwork-based consultation with practitioners, service commissioners and service user representatives (563 participants), and an in-depth analytical consultation in three diagonal slice workshops (89 participants); (iii) synthesis of the previous two stages. Results and conclusions The process resulted in widely agreed recommendations together with suggestions for implementation. It was very positively evaluated by participants and those likely to use the recommendations. Service users had a strong voice throughout and participated actively. This mix of methods allowed a transparent, accountable process for formulating recommendations based on scientific, theoretical, practical and expert evidence, with the added potential to enhance implementation.