11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Awareness of fetal movements and care package to reduce fetal mortality (AFFIRM): a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          2·6 million pregnancies were estimated to have ended in stillbirth in 2015. The aim of the AFFIRM study was to test the hypothesis that introduction of a reduced fetal movement (RFM), care package for pregnant women and clinicians that increased women's awareness of the need for prompt reporting of RFM and that standardised management, including timely delivery, would alter the incidence of stillbirth.

          Methods

          This stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial was done in the UK and Ireland. Participating maternity hospitals were grouped and randomised, using a computer-generated allocation scheme, to one of nine intervention implementation dates (at 3 month intervals). This date was concealed from clusters and the trial team until 3 months before the implementation date. Each participating hospital had three observation periods: a control period from Jan 1, 2014, until randomised date of intervention initiation; a washout period from the implementation date and for 2 months; and the intervention period from the end of the washout period until Dec 31, 2016. Treatment allocation was not concealed from participating women and caregivers. Data were derived from observational maternity data. The primary outcome was incidence of stillbirth. The primary analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle, with births analysed according to whether they took place during the control or intervention periods, irrespective of whether the intervention had been implemented as planned. This study is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01777022.

          Findings

          37 hospitals were enrolled in the study. Four hospitals declined participation, and 33 hospitals were randomly assigned to an intervention implementation date. Between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec, 31, 2016, data were collected from 409 175 pregnancies (157 692 deliveries during the control period, 23 623 deliveries in the washout period, and 227 860 deliveries in the intervention period). The incidence of stillbirth was 4·40 per 1000 births during the control period and 4·06 per 1000 births in the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·75–1·07; p=0·23).

          Interpretation

          The RFM care package did not reduce the risk of stillbirths. The benefits of a policy that promotes awareness of RFM remains unproven.

          Funding

          Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government (CZH/4/882), Tommy's Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, Sands.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

          Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

            In 2006, WHO published international growth standards for children younger than 5 years, which are now accepted worldwide. In the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, our aim was to complement them by developing international standards for fetuses, newborn infants, and the postnatal growth period of preterm infants. INTERGROWTH-21(st) is a population-based project that assessed fetal growth and newborn size in eight geographically defined urban populations. These groups were selected because most of the health and nutrition needs of mothers were met, adequate antenatal care was provided, and there were no major environmental constraints on growth. As part of the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study (NCSS), a component of INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, we measured weight, length, and head circumference in all newborn infants, in addition to collecting data prospectively for pregnancy and the perinatal period. To construct the newborn standards, we selected all pregnancies in women meeting (in addition to the underlying population characteristics) strict individual eligibility criteria for a population at low risk of impaired fetal growth (labelled the NCSS prescriptive subpopulation). Women had a reliable ultrasound estimate of gestational age using crown-rump length before 14 weeks of gestation or biparietal diameter if antenatal care started between 14 weeks and 24 weeks or less of gestation. Newborn anthropometric measures were obtained within 12 h of birth by identically trained anthropometric teams using the same equipment at all sites. Fractional polynomials assuming a skewed t distribution were used to estimate the fitted centiles. We identified 20,486 (35%) eligible women from the 59,137 pregnant women enrolled in NCSS between May 14, 2009, and Aug 2, 2013. We calculated sex-specific observed and smoothed centiles for weight, length, and head circumference for gestational age at birth. The observed and smoothed centiles were almost identical. We present the 3rd, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th centile curves according to gestational age and sex. We have developed, for routine clinical practice, international anthropometric standards to assess newborn size that are intended to complement the WHO Child Growth Standards and allow comparisons across multiethnic populations. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              Stillbirth rates in high-income countries have shown little or no improvement over the past two decades. Prevention strategies that target risk factors could be important in rate reduction. This systematic review and meta-analysis was done to identify priority areas for stillbirth prevention relevant to those countries. Population-based studies addressing risk factors for stillbirth were identified through database searches. The factors most frequently reported were identified and selected according to whether they could potentially be reduced through lifestyle or medical intervention. The numbers attributable to modifiable risk factors were calculated from data relating to the five high-income countries with the highest numbers of stillbirths and where all the data required for analysis were available. Odds ratios were calculated for selected risk factors, from which population-attributable risk (PAR) values were calculated. Of 6963 studies initially identified, 96 population-based studies were included. Maternal overweight and obesity (body-mass index >25 kg/m(2)) was the highest ranking modifiable risk factor, with PARs of 8-18% across the five countries and contributing to around 8000 stillbirths (≥22 weeks' gestation) annually across all high-income countries. Advanced maternal age (>35 years) and maternal smoking yielded PARs of 7-11% and 4-7%, respectively, and each year contribute to more than 4200 and 2800 stillbirths, respectively, across all high-income countries. In disadvantaged populations maternal smoking could contribute to 20% of stillbirths. Primiparity contributes to around 15% of stillbirths. Of the pregnancy disorders, small size for gestational age and abruption are the highest PARs (23% and 15%, respectively), which highlights the notable role of placental pathology in stillbirth. Pre-existing diabetes and hypertension remain important contributors to stillbirth in such countries. The raising of awareness and implementation of effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, such as overweight, obesity, maternal age, and smoking, are priorities for stillbirth prevention in high-income countries. The Stillbirth Foundation Australia, the Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra, Australia, and the Mater Foundation, Brisbane, Australia. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                03 November 2018
                03 November 2018
                : 392
                : 10158
                : 1629-1638
                Affiliations
                [a ]Tommy's Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [b ]Tommy's Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [c ]St Mary's Hospital, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
                [d ]Centre for Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute of Population Health, Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [e ]The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK
                [f ]Global Health Cluster, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [g ]Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                [h ]Centre for Fetal Medicine, Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, UK
                [i ]UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                [j ]Department of Neonatology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
                [k ]Royal College of Midwives, Edinburgh, UK
                [l ]Sands, Victoria Charity Centre, London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Professor Jane E Norman, Tommy's Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, People and Culture University of Edinburgh MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK jane.norman@ 123456ed.ac.uk
                Article
                S0140-6736(18)31543-5
                10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31543-5
                6215771
                30269876
                7e938f46-6fcf-4841-bcd3-c036bb09ee8e
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article