Dataset Information

Effectiveness of earlier antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care: cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care as a way of facilitating earlier uptake of screening.

Design

Partial factorial cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

25 UK general practices from deprived inner city areas.

Participants

Anonymised data on all pregnant women attending participating practices during a six month period before randomisation and a seven month period after randomisation. This included 1708 eligible women.

Intervention

Practices were randomised to three groups for seven months: parallel testing in general practice (tests for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia offered to both parents when pregnancy was first reported); sequential testing in general practice (tests offered to mothers when pregnancy was first reported, and subsequently to the partners of women who were found to be carriers); and midwife care (tests offered to mothers at first consultation with a midwife).

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome (available for all women) was the proportion of eligible women screened before 10 weeks' (70 days') gestation. Secondary outcomes were an offer of screening to women before 10 weeks' gestation, gestational age at testing, mean interval from first visit to the general practice visit to screening, and women's knowledge of the carrier status of their baby's father before 77 days' (11 weeks') gestation. The study was designed to detect a 20% absolute increase in screening uptake. Cluster level analyses were adjusted for age group, parity, ethnic group, primary care organisation, and number of general practitioners per practice.

Results

Data were analysed for 1708 eligible women. In the midwife care arm, 2% (9/441) of women were screened before 10 weeks' gestation compared with 24% (161/677) in the GP parallel testing arm and 28% (167/590) in the GP sequential testing arm. The estimated adjusted difference between the midwife care and GP parallel testing arms was 16.5% (95% confidence interval 7.1% to 25.8%; P=0.002) and between the midwife care and GP sequential testing arms was 27.8% (14.8% to 40.7%; P<0.001). By 26 weeks' gestation the proportion of women screened across the three trial arms was similar (81%). The proportion of women who knew the carrier status of the baby's father by 11 weeks' gestation was 0% (0/441) in the midwife care arm, 2% (13/677) in the GP parallel testing arm (P=0.003), and 1% (3/590) in the GP sequential testing arm (P=0.374).

Conclusion

Offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia as part of consultations for pregnancy confirmation in primary care increases the proportion of women screened before 10 weeks' gestation. Even with intervention, however, only a minority of women were screened before 10 weeks. Additional interventions should be considered to achieve testing early in pregnancy for most women wanting such tests so that couples with affected pregnancies have less time pressure to choose options, which may include termination of the pregnancy.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00677850.

SUBMITTER: Dormandy E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2950261 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:The protection and promotion of breastfeeding is considered a priority in Europe where only 22% of infants less than 6 months old are exclusively breastfed. In Spain this percentage reaches 24.8% but in our city it falls to 18.26%. Various studies emphasise that the improvement of these results should be based upon the training of health professionals. Following the recommendations of a breastfeeding guide can modify the practice of health professionals and improve results with respect to exclusively or predominatly breastfed children at 6 months of age.This study involves a community based cluster randomized trial in primary healthcare centres in Leganés (Madrid, Spain). The project aims to determine whether the use of an implementation strategy (including training session, information distribution, opinion leader) of a breastfeeding guideline in primary care is more effective than usual diffusion. The number of patients required will be 240 (120 in each arm). It will be included all the mothers of infants born during the study period (6 months) who come to the health centre on the first visit of the child care programme and who give their consent to participate. The main outcome variable is the exclusive o predominant breastfeeding at 6 moths of age..Main effectiveness will be analyzed by comparing the percentage of infants with exclusive or predominant breastfeeding at 6 months between the intervention group and the control group. All statistical tests will be performed with intention to treat. Logistic regression with random effects will be used to adjust for prognostic factors. Confounding factors or factors that might alter the effect recorded will be taken into account in this analysis.Strategies need to be found which facilitate the giving of effective advice on breastfeeding by professionals and which provide support to women during the breastfeeding period. By applying the guide's recommendations, clinical variability can be reduced and the care received by patients can be improved.The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01474096.

Project description:There is a considerable body of evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions in individuals who wish to quit smoking. However, there are no large-scale studies testing the whole range of interventions currently recommended for helping people to give up smoking; specifically those interventions that include motivational interviews for individuals who are not interested in quitting smoking in the immediate to short term. Furthermore, many of the published studies were undertaken in specialized units or by a small group of motivated primary care centres. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped smoking cessation intervention based on a trans-theoretical model of change, applied to an extensive group of Primary Care Centres (PCC).Cluster randomised clinical trial. Unit of randomization: basic unit of care consisting of a family physician and a nurse, both of whom care for the same population (aprox. 2000 people). Intention to treat analysis.Smokers (n = 3024) aged 14 to 75 years consulting for any reason to PCC and who provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.6-month implementation of recommendations of a Clinical Practice Guideline which includes brief motivational interviews for smokers at the precontemplation - contemplation stage, brief intervention for smokers in preparation-action who do not want help, intensive intervention with pharmacotherapy for smokers in preparation-action who want help, and reinforcing intervention in the maintenance stage.usual care.Self-reported abstinence confirmed by exhaled air carbon monoxide concentration of <or= 10 parts per million. Points of assessment: end of intervention period and 1 and 2 years post-intervention; continuous abstinence rate for 1 year; change in smoking cessation stage; health status measured by SF-36.The application of a stepped intervention based on the stages of a change model is possible under real and diverse clinical practice conditions, and improves the smoking cessation success rate in smokers, besides of their intention or not to give up smoking at baseline.

Project description:ObjectivesDizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care.DesignCluster randomized controlled trial.Setting45 primary care practices in The Netherlands.Participants168 participants aged ?65y who consulted their general practitioner for dizziness and experienced significant dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) ?30). Participants were part of to the intervention group (n = 83) or control group (n = 85), depending on whether they were enlisted in an intervention practice or in a control practice.InterventionsThe multifactorial intervention consisted of: medication adjustment in case of ?3 prescribed fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and/or stepped mental health care in case of anxiety disorder and/or depression and/or exercise therapy in case of impaired functional mobility. The intervention was compared to usual care.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was dizziness-related impairment. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), dizziness frequency, fall frequency, anxiety and depression, use of FRIDs.ResultsIntention-to-treat analysis showed no significant intervention effect on dizziness-related impairment (DHI score difference -0.69 [95% CI -5.66;4.28]; p = 0.79). The intervention proved effective in reducing the number of FRIDs (FRID difference -0.48 [95% CI -0.89;-0.06]; p = 0.02). No significant intervention effects were found on other secondary outcomes. The uptake of and adherence to the interventions was significantly lower in patients eligible for ?2 interventions compared to patients eligible for one intervention (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older patients showed no significant intervention effect on most outcomes and adherence to the multifactorial intervention was low. Although multifactorial treatment for older dizzy people seems promising in theory, we question its feasibility in daily practice. Future research could focus on a sequential treatment for dizziness, e.g. measuring effectiveness of various evidence-based therapies in a stepwise approach.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the long term effectiveness of integrated disease management delivered in primary care on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care.Design24 month, multicentre, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trialSetting40 general practices in the western part of the NetherlandsParticipantsPatients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse, and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team.InterventionGeneral practitioners, practice nurses, and specialised physiotherapists in the intervention group received a two day training course on incorporating integrated disease management in practice, including early recognition of exacerbations and self management, smoking cessation, physiotherapeutic reactivation, optimal diagnosis, and drug adherence. Additionally, the course served as a network platform and collaborating healthcare providers designed an individual practice plan to integrate integrated disease management into daily practice. The control group continued usual care (based on international guidelines).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was difference in health status at 12 months, measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ); quality of life, Medical Research Council dyspnoea, exacerbation related outcomes, self management, physical activity, and level of integrated care (PACIC) were also assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsOf a total of 1086 patients from 40 clusters, 20 practices (554 patients) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 20 clusters (532 patients) to the usual care group. No difference was seen between groups in the CCQ at 12 months (mean difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.08; P=0.8). After 12 months, no differences were seen in secondary outcomes between groups, except for the PACIC domain "follow-up/coordination" (indicating improved integration of care) and proportion of physically active patients. Exacerbation rates as well as number of days in hospital did not differ between groups. After 24 months, no differences were seen in outcomes, except for the PACIC follow-up/coordination domain.ConclusionIn this pragmatic study, an integrated disease management approach delivered in primary care showed no additional benefit compared with usual care, except improved level of integrated care and a self reported higher degree of daily activities. The contradictory findings to earlier positive studies could be explained by differences between interventions (provider versus patient targeted), selective reporting of positive trials, or little room for improvement in the already well developed Dutch healthcare system.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2268.

Project description:IntroductionWomen in regions with high HIV prevalence are at high risk of HIV acquisition during pregnancy and postpartum, and acute maternal HIV contributes a substantial proportion of infant HIV infections. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) could prevent HIV during pregnancy/postpartum; however, identifying women who would most benefit from PrEP in this period is challenging. Women may not perceive risk, may not know partner HIV status and partners may have external partners during this period. PrEP offer in pregnancy could be universal or risk guided.Methods and analysisThe PrEP Implementation for Mothers in Antenatal Care (PrIMA) study is a cluster randomised trial that aims to determine the best model for PrEP implementation in pregnancy, among women attending public sector maternal child health clinics in Western Kenya (HIV prevalence >25%). Twenty clinics are randomised to either universal PrEP offer following standardised counselling ('Universal arm' 10 clinics) or risk screening with partner self-test option ('Targeted arm' 10 clinics). Four thousand women will be enrolled and followed through 9-month postpartum. The primary analysis will be intention to treat. Outcomes reflect the balance between HIV preventive effectiveness and avoiding unnecessary PrEP exposure to women at low risk and include: maternal HIV incidence, PrEP uptake, PrEP adherence, PrEP duration, 'appropriate' PrEP use (among women with objective evidence of potential risk), infant birth outcomes, infant growth and partner self-testing uptake. To better understand the feasibility and acceptability of the provision of PrEP in these settings, qualitative interviews and cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at Kenyatta National Hospital and the University of Washington. An external advisory panel monitors adverse and social harm events. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, presentations at local and international conferences to national and global policy makers, community and participants.Trial registration numberNCT03070600.

Project description:Background:Antenatal care is an important public health priority. Women from socially disadvantaged, and culturally and linguistically diverse groups often have difficulties with accessing antenatal care and report more negative experiences with care. Although group antenatal care has been shown in some settings to be effective for improving women's experiences of care and for improving other maternal as well as newborn health outcomes, these outcomes have not been rigorously assessed in the UK. A pilot trial will be conducted to determine the feasibility of, and optimum methods for, testing the effectiveness of group antenatal care in an NHS setting serving populations with high levels of social deprivation and cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity. Outcomes will inform the protocol for a future full trial. Methods:This protocol outlines an individual-level randomised controlled external pilot trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The two trial arms will be group care and standard antenatal care. The trial will involve the recruitment of 72 pregnant women across three maternity services within one large NHS Acute Trust. Baseline, outcomes and economic data will be collected via questionnaires completed by the participants at three time points, with the final scheduled for 4 months postnatal. Routine maternity service data will also be collected for outcomes assessment and economic evaluation purposes. Stakeholder interviews will provide insights into the acceptability of research and intervention processes, including the use of interpreters to support women who do not speak English. Pre-agreed criteria have been selected to guide the decision about whether or not to progress to a full trial. Discussion:This pilot trial will determine if it is appropriate to proceed to a full trial of group antenatal care in this setting. If progression is supported, the pilot will provide authoritative high-quality evidence to inform the design and conduct of a trial in this important area that holds significant potential to influence maternity care, outcomes and experience. Trial registration:ISRCTN ISRCTN66925258. Registered 03 April 2017. Retrospectively registered.