Search

Abstract Over the past decade, there has been growing evidence that women worldwide experience sub-standard care during facility-based childbirth. With this critical review, we synthesize concepts and measurement approaches used to assess maternity care conditions and provision, birth experiences and perceptions in epidemiological, quantitative research studies (e.g., obstetric violence, maternal satisfaction, disrespect or mistreatment during childbirth, person-centered care), aiming to propose an umbrella concept and framework under which the existing and future research strands can be situated. On the 82 studies included, we conduct a meta-ethnography (ME) using reciprocal translation, in-line argumentation, and higher-level synthesis to propose the birth integrity multilevel framework. We perform ME steps for the conceptual level and the measurement level. At the conceptual level, we organize the studies according to the similarity of approaches into clusters and derive key concepts (definitions). Then, we ‘translate’ the clusters into one another by elaborating each approach’s specific angle and pointing out the affinities and differences between the clusters. Finally, we present an in-line argumentation that prepares ground for the synthesis. At the measurement level, we identify themes from items through content analysis, then organize themes into 14 categories and subthemes. Finally, we synthesize our result to the six-field, macro-to-micro level birth integrity framework that helps to analytically distinguish between the interwoven contributing factors that influence the birth situation as such and the integrity of those giving birth. The framework can guide survey development, interviews, or interventional studies.

Abstract Background Smoking cessation during pregnancy and the postpartum period by both women and their partners offers multiple health benefits. However, compared to pregnant/postpartum women, their partners are less likely to actively seek smoking cessation services. There is an increased recognition about the importance of tailored approaches to smoking cessation for expectant and new fathers. While Behavior Change Interventions (BCIs) are a promising approach for smoking cessation interventions, evidence on effectiveness exclusively among expectant and new fathers are fragmented and does not allow for many firm conclusions to be drawn. Methods We conducted a systematic review on effectiveness of BCIs on smoking cessation outcomes of expectant and new fathers both through individual and/or couple-based interventions. Peer reviewed articles were identified from eight databases without any date or language restriction.Two independent reviewers screened studies for relevance, assessed methodological quality of relevant studies, and extracted data from studies using a predeveloped data extraction sheet. Results We retrieved 1222 studies, of which 39 were considered for full text screening after reviewing the titles and abstracts. An additional eight studies were identified from reviewing the reference list of review articles picked up by the databases search. A total of nine Randomised Control Trials were included in the study. Six studies targeted expectant/new fathers, two targeted couples and one primarily targeted women with an intervention component to men. While the follow-up measurements for men varied across studies, the majority reported biochemically verified quit rates at 6 months. Most of the interventions showed positive effects on cessation outcomes. BCI were heterogenous across studies. Findings are suggestive of gender targeted interventions being more likely to have positive cessation outcomes. Conclusions This systematic review found limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of BCI among expectant and new fathers, although the majority of studies show positive effects of these interventions on smoking cessation outcomes. There remains a need for more research targeted at expectant and new fathers. Further, there is a need to identify how smoking cessation service delivery can better address the needs of (all) gender(s) during pregnancy.

Abstract Gender-transformative health interventions that involve men and boys are gaining global reach, adaptability to specific geographical, population and epidemiological contexts, public endorsement, and conceptual sophistication. However, the ways in which masculinities are conceptualised and operationalised in theory and practice across these interventions remains unclear. The purpose of this scoping review is to map intervention studies that conceptually grapple with masculinities and analyse: a) how the concept of masculinities is adapted and operationalised in gender-transformative interventions, with respect to intervention population and context, b) what the relationship between the concept of masculinities and its wider theoretical embedding is, and c) on which levels transformation can be observed when working with ‘masculinities’. We conducted a search in APA Psych Articles, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL via EBSCO, MedLine, PubMed, and Web of Sciences (December 2021) looking for peer-reviewed studies on gender-transformative health interventions which engaged with masculinities conceptually. There were no restrictions regarding language, publication date, or geography. Forty-two articles were included in this review. Our abductive analysis finds that ‘hegemonic masculinities’ is a central concept in almost all included studies. This shows how the concept is adaptable to a range of different intervention contexts. The review further identifies five theoretical approaches, that help operationalise masculinities on an analytical level: feminist framework, affect theory, critical pedagogy, theories of social change, and ecological approaches. Lastly, this review draws out six levels on which transformation can be observed in the intervention outcomes: relational level, symbolic level, material level, affective level, cognitive-behavioural level, and community-structural level. The discussion underlines that processes and practices of (gender) transformation also require engagement with theories of transformation more widely and advocates for theoretical pluralism. Lastly, implications for practice, including preventative, ecological and community-based care models, are drawn out.

Introduction Abortion is a crucial sexual and reproductive right. However, the legal situation of pregnancy termination is rather heterogeneous across countries and regions. The political climate and cultural perception may result in abortion-related stigma. This mixed-methods systematic review protocol aims to detail the proposed methods for assessing the current state of research on abortion stigma in high-income countries from an abortion seeker, healthcare provider and public perspective.Methods and analysis Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline, we conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed studies from high-income countries in relevant electronic databases: PubMed, CINHAL, PsycINFO, LIVIVO and Cochrane Library. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies that measured or examined abortion-related stigma in abortion seekers, healthcare professionals and the general public will be included. Assessment of risk of bias, data synthesis and qualitative meta-aggregation will be carried out.Ethics and dissemination The results of the systematic review will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

Abstract Background Social media offer women a space to discuss birth-related fears and experiences. This is particularly the case during the COVID-19 pandemic when measures to contain the spread of the virus and high rates of infection have had an impact on the delivery of care, potentially restricting women’s rights and increasing the risk of experiencing different forms of mistreatment or violence. Through the lens of birth integrity, we focused on the experiences of women giving birth in Germany as shared on social media, and on what may have sheltered or violated their integrity during birth. Methods Using thematic analysis, we identified key themes in 127 comments and associated reactions (i.e. “likes”, emojis) posted on a Facebook public page in response to the dissemination of a research survey on maternity care in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Women contributing to the dataset gave birth during March and December 2020. They were most negatively affected by own mask-wearing –especially during the active phase of labour, not being allowed a birth companion of choice, lack of supportive care, and exclusion of their partner from the hospital. Those topics generated the most reactions, revealing compassion from other women and mixed feelings about health measures, from acceptation to anger. Many women explicitly formulated how inhumane or disrespectful the care was. While some women felt restricted by the tight visiting rules, those were seen as positive by others, who benefited from the relative quiet of maternity wards and opportunities for postpartum healing and bonding. Conclusion Exceptional pandemic circumstances have introduced new parameters in maternity care, some of which appear acceptable, necessary, or beneficial to women, and some of which can be considered violations of birth integrity. Our research calls for the investigation of the long-term impact of those violations and the reassessment of the optimal conditions of the delivery of respectful maternity during the pandemic and beyond.

Abstract Background Exclusive breastfeeding is the optimal infant nutrition, providing infants immunoprotection against many diseases including SARS-CoV-2 infection. Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic may have negatively affected breastfeeding practices in maternity care facilities. The aims of the study were to examine exclusive breastfeeding rates at discharge over time and to identify factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding during the pandemic. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among mothers who gave birth in a maternity care facility in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The socio-ecological model was employed to examine intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, and community/society factors associated with maternal report of exclusive breastfeeding at the time of discharge. Results There were 26,709 participating mothers from 17 European Region countries who were included in the analysis. Among the mothers, 72.4% (n = 19,350) exclusively breastfed and 27.6% (n = 7,359) did not exclusively breastfeed at discharge. There was an overall decline in exclusive breastfeeding rates over time (p = 0.015) with a significantly lower rate following the publication of the WHO breastfeeding guidelines on 23 June 2020 (AOR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82, 0.94). Factors significantly associated with exclusive breastfeeding outcomes in the logistic regression analysis included maternal age, parity, education, health insurance, mode of birth, inadequate breastfeeding support, lack of early breastfeeding initiation, lack of full rooming-in, birth attendant, perceived healthcare professionalism and attention, facility room cleanliness, timing of birth, and location of birth. Conclusions Results from the study indicate the decline in exclusive breastfeeding rates in the WHO European Region during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the socio-ecological model to identify factors associated with breastfeeding outcomes facilitates an integrated and holistic approach to address breastfeeding needs among women across the region. These findings demonstrate the need to augment breastfeeding support and to protect exclusive breastfeeding among mother-infant dyads, in an effort to reverse the declining exclusive breastfeeding rates. The study highlights the need to educate mothers and their families about the importance of exclusive breastfeeding, reduce maternal-infant separation, increase professional breastfeeding support, and follow evidence-based practice guidelines to promote breastfeeding in a comprehensive and multi-level manner. Trial registration number Clinical Trials NCT04847336.

Abstract Background The mapping of immigration-related health inequalities remains challenging, since immigrant populations constitute a heterogenous socially constructed group whose health experiences differ by social determinants of health. In spite of the increasing awareness that population mobility and its effects on health are highly gendered, an explicit gender perspective in epidemiology is often lacking or limited. Methods To map inequalities in self-reported physical and mental health in Germany at the intersections of sex, gendered practices and immigration status, we used data from the German Socioeconomic Panel (SOEP) and applied an intercategorical intersectional approach conducting multilevel linear regression models. We differentiated between sex (male/female) as reported in the survey and gendered social practices, quantified through a gender score (on a femininity-masculinity continuum). Results We included 20,897 participants in our analyses. We saw an intersectional gradient for physical and mental health. Compared to the reference group, i.e. non-immigrant males with masculine gendered practices, physical and mental health steadily decreased in the intersectional groups that did not embody one or more of these social positions. The highest decreases in health were observed in the intersectional group of immigrant females with feminine gendered practices for physical health (-1,36; 95% CI [-2,09; -0,64]) and among non-immigrant females with feminine practices for mental health (-2,51; 95% CI [-3,01; -2,01]). Conclusions Patterns of physical and mental health vary along the intersectional axes of sex, gendered practices and immigration status. These findings highlight the relevance of intersections in describing population health statuses and emphasise the need to take them into account when designing public health policies aiming at effectively reducing health inequalities.

Mothers tended to be responsible for most of the (additional) caregiving and domestic tasks during the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously having to pursue their work duties. Increased role conflicts, parenting stress, and exhaustion predict adverse mental health. We aimed to examine how women referred to and made sense of dominant gender norms in their arrangements of pandemic daily life and how these beliefs impacted their maternal self-conception. Qualitative interviews with 17 women were analyzed through the lens of “intensive mothering” ideology and “ideal workers” norms, emphasizing notions of maternal guilt rising from a perceived mismatch between the ideal and actual maternal self-conception. We found that mothers' notions of guilt and their decreases in health link to dominant discourses on motherhood and intersect with “ideal worker” norms. As such, these norms amplify the burden of gendered health inequalities.

Objectives: Mothers of young children have been identified as a particularly vulnerable group during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to explore how occupational, psychosocial and partnership-related factors were associated with their self-reported mental well-being during the first COVID-19 wave. Methods: Five hundred fifty participants of the BaBi cohort study (est. 2013, Bielefeld, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany) were invited to complete an online survey and to take part in email interviews (April–May 2020). With survey data, we assessed self-reported mental well-being through validated instruments (eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire; short version of the Symptom Checklist) and ran linear regression models for occupational, psychosocial and partnership-related factors. We performed content analysis on the interviews’ data to further understand the determinants of the women’s mental well-being. Results: One hundred twenty-four women participated in the survey; of which 17 also participated in the interviews. A perceived lack of support in childcare was associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms, while having a higher internal locus of control was associated with lower levels. Psychological distress was higher in those reporting lack of emotional or childcare support. Interviews confirmed the interplay of potential stressors and highlighted the difficulties to reconcile different expectations of motherhood. Discussion: Occupational, psychosocial and partner-related factors can act (to varying degree) both as resources and stressors to the self-reported mental well-being of mothers of young children. These impacts took different forms and created opportunities or challenges, depending on specific life circumstances, such as work or family situations, relationships and own psychosocial resources. Although not representative, our study contributes to building the COVID-19 evidence base, delineating the mental health toll of the pandemic on mothers of young children and the factors that contribute to it.

Medical abortion (MA) is recommended by the WHO as a safe and effective pregnancy termination method in the first trimester. From a feminist perspective, it is a non-medicalised, self-managed, emancipating procedure allowing persons seeking abortion to be more in control of their abortion, as opposed to surgical procedures. In European countries where MA is legal, the proportion of MA (relative to surgical abortions) varies greatly. We hypothesised that this ratio may be partly explained by country-level dimensions of gender equality. We assessed the association between MA ratios and gender equality in Europe in correlation and regression analyses, using several country-level gender equality indices. The relevance of other factors, i.e. date of introduction of MA and pregnancy week until which MA is permitted, was also investigated. MA ratios ranged from 24.4% (Italy) to 97.7% (Finland). MA was more frequent relative to surgical abortion in countries with higher levels of gender equality. All gender equality indices were associated with MA ratios (e.g. Global Gender Gap Index corr. coeff: 0.761, p

Objectives Develop and validate a WHO Standards-based online questionnaire to measure the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth from the health workers’ perspective.Design Mixed-methods study.Setting Six countries of the WHO European Region.Participants and methods The questionnaire is based on lessons learnt in previous studies, and was developed in three sequential phases: (1) WHO Quality Measures were prioritised and content, construct and face validity were assessed through a Delphi involving a multidisciplinary board of experts from 11 countries of the WHO European Region; (2) translation/back translation of the English version was conducted following The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research guidelines; (3) internal consistency, intrarater reliability and acceptability were assessed among 600 health workers in six countries.Results The questionnaire included 40 items based on WHO Standards Quality Measures, equally divided into four domains: provision of care, experience of care, availability of human and physical resources, organisational changes due to COVID-19; and its organised in six sections. It was translated/back translated in 12 languages: Bosnian, Croatian, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. The Cronbach’s alpha values were ≥0.70 for each questionnaire section where questions were hypothesised to be interrelated, indicating good internal consistence. Cohen K or Gwet’s AC1 values were ≥0.60, suggesting good intrarater reliability, except for one question. Acceptability was good with only 1.70% of health workers requesting minimal changes in question wording.Conclusions Findings suggest that the questionnaire has good content, construct, face validity, internal consistency, intrarater reliability and acceptability in six countries of the WHO European Region. Future studies may further explore the questionnaire’s use in other countries, and how to translate evidence generated by this tool into policies to improve the QMNC.Trail registration number NCT04847336

Summary: Background: Multi-country studies assessing the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by WHO Standards, are lacking. Methods: Women who gave birth in 12 countries of the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020 - March 15, 2021 answered an online questionnaire, including 40 WHO Standard-based Quality Measures. Findings: 21,027 mothers were included in the analysis. Among those who experienced labour (N=18,063), 41·8% (26·1%- 63·5%) experienced difficulties in accessing antenatal care, 62% (12·6%-99·0%) were not allowed a companion of choice, 31·1% (16·5%-56·9%) received inadequate breastfeeding support, 34·4% (5·2%-64·8%) reported that health workers were not always using protective personal equipment, and 31·8% (17·8%-53·1%) rated the health workers’ number as “insufficient”. Episiotomy was performed in 20·1% (6·1%-66·0%) of spontaneous vaginal births and fundal pressure applied in 41·2% (11·5% -100%) of instrumental vaginal births. In addition, 23·9% women felt they were not treated with dignity (12·8%-59·8%), 12·5% (7·0%-23·4%) suffered abuse, and 2·4% (0·1%-26·2%) made informal payments. Most findings were significantly worse among women with prelabour caesarean birth (N=2,964). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant differences among countries, with Croatia, Romania, Serbia showing significant lower QMNC Indexes and Luxemburg showing a significantly higher QMNC Index than the total sample. Younger women and those with operative births also reported significantly lower QMNC Indexes. Interpretation: Mothers reports revealed large inequities in QMNC across countries of the WHO European Region. Quality improvement initiatives to reduce these inequities and promote evidence-based, patient-centred respectful care for all mothers and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond are urgently needed. Funding: The study was financially supported by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336

Abstract Background Social media have in recent years challenged the way in which research questions are formulated in epidemiology and medicine, and in particular when it comes to women’s health. They have contributed to the emergence of ‘new’ public health topics (e.g. gynaecological and obstetric violence, long-Covid), the unearthing of testimonials of medical injustice, and in some cases, the creation of new evidence and changes in medical practice. Main text From a theoretical and methodological perspective, we observe two powerful mechanisms at play on social media, which can facilitate the implementation of feminist epidemiological research and address so-called anti-feminist bias: social media as a ‘third’ space and the power of groups. Social media posts can be seen as inhabiting a third space, akin to what is said off the record or in-between doors, at the end of a therapy session. Researchers somehow miss the opportunity to use the third spaces that people occupy. Similarly, another existing space that researchers are seldom interested in are peer-groups. Peer-groups are the ideal terrain to generate bottom-up research priorities. To some extent, their on-line versions provide a safe and emancipatory space, accessible, transnational, and inclusive. We would argue that this could bring feminist epidemiology to scale. Conclusion Given the emancipatory power of social media, we propose recommendations and practical implications for leveraging the potential of online-sourced feminist epidemiology at different stages of the research process (from design to dissemination), and for increasing synergies between researchers and the community. We emphasise that attention should be paid to patriarchal sociocultural contexts and power dynamics, the mitigation of risks for political recuperation and stigmatisation, and the co-production of respectful discourse on studied populations.

Abstract Background Gender as a social construct contributes to determine who migrates and which migration-related risks and opportunities emerge in all phases of the migration trajectory. Simultaneously, migration influences the individual as well as societal definition and perception of gender roles. An explicit gender perspective in migration-related epidemiological research can contribute to adequately analyse and interpret the health of migrants. This systematic review gives a comprehensive overview on how gender has been conceptualised, operationalised and measured in social epidemiologic studies aiming to assess the influence of gender on health among migrants. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, EconLit and PsycINFO and conducted backward reference searching. Reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and conducted the quality assessment. Eligible studies actively aimed to understand, identify or explain the influence of gender on migrants’ health, whereby the role of gender can encompass a variety of mechanisms, processes or states of differentiation, discrimination and/or inequality. Results Almost all of the 43 studies were cross-sectional and focussed on health outcomes in the post-migration phase. The most common theme of research was the health of male migrants in the US, and in particular of men who have sex with men (MSM). All studies treated gender as a binary variable (men vs. women), without discussing additional types of gender identities. A minority of studies differentiated clearly between sex and gender. Gender was mostly operationalised through attitudes toward gender roles and gender-based discrimination, experienced at the individual level. Community and societal level gender measures capturing structural gender determinants were underrepresented. Conclusions The intersections of migration and gender suggested synergistic effects on health that only become visible when considering those two social determinants together. Future research needs to embrace a multilevel and non-binary understanding of gender and reflect on the influence of gender in the different phases of the migration journey. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019124698 .

Abstract Background The “Latina paradox” describes the unexpected association between immigrant status, which is often correlated to low socioeconomic status, and low prevalence of unfavourable birth outcomes. Social (e.g. culture, religion) and/or non-social factors related to country of origin are potentially responsible for this paradox. Methods Questionnaire survey of 6413 women delivering in three large obstetric hospitals in Berlin (Germany) covering socioeconomic and migration status, country of origin (Turkey, Lebanon), and acculturation. Data was linked with routine obstetric data. Logistic regressions were performed to assess the effect of acculturation, affinity to religion and country of origin on preterm birth and small-for-gestational-age (SGA). Results Immigrant women with a low level of acculturation (reference) were less likely to have a preterm birth than those who were highly acculturated (aOR: 1.62, 95%CI: 1.01–2.59), as were women from Turkey compared to non-immigrants (aOR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.33–0.73). For SGA, we found no epidemiologic paradox; conversely, women from Lebanon had a higher chance (aOR: 1.72, 95%CI: 1.27–2.34) of SGA. Affinity to religion had no influence on birth outcomes. Conclusions There is evidence that low acculturation (but not affinity to religion) contributes towards explaining the epidemiologic paradox with regard to preterm birth, emphasising the influence of socioeconomic characteristics on birth outcomes. The influence of Turkish origin on preterm birth and Lebanese origin on SGA suggests that non-social factors relating to the country of origin are also at play in explaining birth outcome differences, and that the direction of the effect varies depending on the country of origin and the outcome.

Background: Measuring the phenomenon of violation of birth integrity (vBI) (e.g., obstetric violence) relies in part on the availability and content of maternity care providers' data. The population coverage and linkage possibilities that these data provide make for a yet untapped potential. Although vBI is a complex phenomenon best measured with dedicated instruments, we argue that maternity care providers' data could contribute to enhance our knowledge of the manifestations and frequency of vBI, and allow for analyses across different sub-groups of the population. Looking into the German standardized perinatal data, we investigate which variables are relevant to vBI-related research, and how complete their reporting is.Methods: First, we analyse state-of-the-art frameworks and recommendations, and, for each vBI-related domain, we search for and list corresponding variables in the perinatal data which could contribute to a better understanding of vBI issues. Second, we use an example and analyse the content of perinatal data obtained between 2013 and 2016 in the context of the BaBi birth cohort study set in Bielefeld, Germany. We use descriptive statistics to assess the completeness of the data.Results: The vBI-related variables can be classified in three main categories: discrimination based on specific patient socio-demographic attributes (e.g., height and weight to calculate BMI before pregnancy, foreign origin), indication for medical interventions (i.e., medicalization-related variables: indication for cesarean sections and induction), and supportive care, in particular the mobilization dimension (e.g., continuous fetal heartbeat monitoring). The data analyses included 876 births, of which 601 were vaginal birth. We found poor reporting on demographic variables in terms of completeness. Medicalization and mobilization variables are better documented, although limited in scope.Conclusions: Putting more emphasis on the completeness of standardized data could increase their potential for vBI-related research. Perinatal data alone are insufficient to assess vBI, but a broader, theory-informed discussion of indicators to be included in standardized datasets would contribute to capturing the different aspects of integrity violation in a more systematic way and expand the evidence-base on different types of vBI.

Background The relevance of gender as a social determinant of health and its role in the production of health inequalities is now broadly acknowledged. However, the plethora of existing approaches to capture gender, which often stem from disciplines outside of epidemiology, makes it difficult to assess their practicality and relevance for a given research purpose. We conducted a scoping review to 1) map the evidence of how gender can be operationalised in quantitative epidemiology and 2) design a tool to critically evaluate the measures identified. Methods We identified peer-reviewed articles in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO). Eligible sources described the quantitative operationalisation of the social dimension of gender. With the help of a newly developed checklist, we assessed their relevance from an analytical perspective (e.g. intersectionality) and their potential for implementation in epidemiology. Results Gender measures principally assessed gender roles and norms, gender-based discrimination and violence, and structural gender (in)equality. Of the 344 measures included in this review, the majority lacked theoretical foundation, and tended to reinforce the binary understanding of gender through stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Only few measures allowed for an intersectional approach and a multilevel understanding of gender mechanisms. From a practical point of view, gender measures demonstrated potential for use in varied populations and contexts. Conclusions A range of gender measures are readily available for epidemiological research, addressing different levels and dimensions of gender as a social construct. With our theory-informed, practice-driven scoping review, we highlighted strengths and limitations of such measures and provided analytical tools for researchers interested in conducting intersectional, gender-sensitive analyses.

Background: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. Design/data sources: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with

Background: The notion of a community hospital in England is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential. Objectives: This study sought to (1) define the nature and scope of service provision models that fit under the umbrella term ‘community hospital’ in the UK and other high-income countries, (2) analyse evidence of their effectiveness and efficiency, (3) explore the wider role and impact of community engagement in community hospitals, (4) understand how models in other countries operate and asses their role within the wider health-care system, and (5) identify the potential for community hospitals to perform an integrative role in the delivery of health and social care. Methods: A multimethod study including a scoping review of community hospital models, a linked systematic review of their effectiveness and efficiency, an analysis of experiences in Australia, Finland, Italy, Norway and Scotland, and case studies of four community hospitals in Finland, Italy and Scotland. Results: The evidence reviews found that community hospitals provide a diverse range of services, spanning primary, secondary and long-term care in geographical and health system contexts. They can offer an effective and efficient alternative to acute hospitals. Patient experience was frequently reported to be better at community hospitals, and the cost-effectiveness of some models was found to be similar to that of general hospitals, although evidence was limited. Evidence from other countries showed that community hospitals provide a wide spectrum of health services that lie on a continuum between serving a ‘geographic purpose’ and having a specific population focus, mainly older people. Structures continue to evolve as countries embark on major reforms to integrate health and social care. Case studies highlighted that it is important to consider local and national contexts when looking at how to transfer models across settings, how to overcome barriers to integration beyond location and how the community should be best represented. Limitations: The use of a restricted definition may have excluded some relevant community hospital models, and the small number of countries and case studies included for comparison may limit the transferability of findings for England. Although this research provides detailed insights into community hospitals in five countries, it was not in its scope to include the perspective of patients in any depth. Conclusions: At a time when emphasis is being placed on integrated and community-based care, community hospitals have the potential to assume a more strategic role in health-care delivery locally, providing care closer to people’s homes. There is a need for more research into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community hospitals, the role of the community and optimal staff profile(s). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Aim: This study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B. Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services. Findings from the scoping review: Evidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals. Findings from the substudies: Because of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS. Conclusions: For many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience. Funding: The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Available evidence on effective interventions to reduce length of stay in hospital is wide-ranging and complex, with underlying factors including those acting at the health system, organisational and patient levels, and the interface between these. There is a need to better understand the diverse literature on reducing the length of hospital stay. Objectives: This study sought to (i) describe the nature of interventions that have been used to reduce length of stay in acute care hospitals; (ii) identify the factors that are known to influence length of stay; and (iii) assess the impact of interventions on patient outcomes, service outcomes and costs. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, the Health Management Information Consortium and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe for the period January 1995 to January 2013 with no limitation of publication type. Methods: We conducted a rapid evidence synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature on organisational interventions set in or initiated from acute hospitals. We considered evidence published between 2003 and 2013. Data were analysed drawing on the principles of narrative synthesis. We also carried out interviews with eight NHS managers and clinical leads in four sites in England. Results: A total of 53 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 19 systematic reviews and 34 primary studies. Although the overall evidence base was varied and frequently lacked a robust study design, we identified a range of interventions that showed potential to reduce length of stay. These were multidisciplinary team working, for example some forms of organised stroke care; improved discharge planning; early supported discharge programmes; and care pathways. Nursing-led inpatient units were associated with improved outcomes but, if anything, increased length of stay. Factors influencing the impact of interventions on length of stay included contextual factors and the population targeted. The evidence was mixed with regard to the extent to which interventions seeking to reduce length of stay were associated with cost savings. Limitations: We only considered assessments of interventions which provided a quantitative estimate of the impact of the given organisational intervention on length of hospital stay. There was a general lack of robust evidence and poor reporting, weakening the conclusions that can be drawn from the review. Conclusions: The design and implementation of an intervention seeking to reduce (directly or indirectly) the length of stay in hospital should be informed by local context and needs. This involves understanding how the intervention is seeking to change processes and behaviours that are anticipated, based on the available evidence, to achieve desired outcomes (‘theory of change’). It will also involve assessing the organisational structures and processes that will need to be put in place to ensure that staff who are expected to deliver the intervention are appropriately prepared and supported. With regard to future research, greater attention should be given to the theoretical underpinning of the design, implementation and evaluation of interventions or programmes. There is a need for further research using appropriate methodology to assess the effectiveness of different types of interventions in different settings. Different evaluation approaches may be useful, and closer relationships between researchers and NHS organisations would enable more formative evaluation. Full economic costing should be undertaken where possible, including considering the cost implications for the wider local health economy. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Procurement of clinical and non-clinical goods has been identified as one area for efficiency savings for the NHS. There is a need for robust evidence to help the NHS make informed decisions about how to make such savings and there is potential for lessons to be learned from activities and initiatives implemented elsewhere to enable the adoption of good practice. The work presented in this report seeks to contribute to this process by advancing our understanding of the evidence on procurement and supply chain management (SCM) in sectors within and outside health care that can inform practice in the NHS. Objectives: Principally drawing on a rapid evidence assessment (REA), we sought to (1) describe approaches to procurement and SCM in selected areas (including, but not limited to, manufacturing and automotive sectors, defence, information and communication technology, and pharmaceutical industries) and (2) identify best practices that may inform procurement and SCM in the NHS. Data sources: Searches were conducted across MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Social Sciences Abstracts, Military and Government Collection, EconLit and Business Source Complete from January 2006 to November 2013, and Google Scholar, Web of Science and Business Source Complete for articles on specific sectors. Methods: We conducted a REA of the published and grey literature in a range of non-health-care and health-care sectors from 2006 onwards. The review was complemented by interviews with a small set of purchasing stakeholders working within and with the NHS to help place the findings of the evidence review in the current NHS context, and a review of select experiences of procurement and SCM in New Zealand and France (chosen because of the likely application of their experiences in the NHS). Results: We identified a total of 72 studies for review. Findings highlighted that there is awareness in scholarly research and industry that SCM and procurement are areas for creating efficiencies and cost savings. We found that collective approaches to purchasing, improving relationships with suppliers, building capabilities and skills for purchasing decisions and the use of technology for data and materials management may lead to more efficient procurement and potentially save costs. Existing empirical evidence was scarce and, where available, tended to be weak in design and execution. Limitations: Given the nature and variety of subject areas covered, an iterative process was conducted to narrow the searches and apply a fairly restricted combination of search terms and cut-off date. Although this still yielded a large number of studies (13,191), it is possible that this approach missed studies that would have been of relevance for this review. Studies that reported empirical findings only were included for final review, but this definition was broadened to include single case studies in order to capture the limited cases of interventions in practice and find examples of what can be learned from practice rather than theory. Conclusions: Many of the studies identified are only described as before-and-after studies and do not include evaluations of their effects. We identified four recommendations for further research. First, there is a need for further research using rigorous methodology to assess the effectiveness of different types of interventions in different settings for improving purchasing and SCM. Second, empirical research on current practices in health-care purchasing and SCM, or evaluation of new practices in health-care settings, should be implemented. Third, an evaluation of the Department of Health’s 2013 Procurement Development Programme and its recommendations provides an opportunity to focus future evaluation efforts. Finally, there is a need for increased interdisciplinary work across health-care management and SCM. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.