Dataset Information

Effect of a novel vital sign device on maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 2015, an estimated 303 000 women died in pregnancy and childbirth. Obstetric haemorrhage, sepsis, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy account for more than 50% of maternal deaths worldwide. There are effective treatments for these pregnancy complications, but they require early detection by measurement of vital signs and timely administration to save lives. The primary aim of this trial was to determine whether implementation of the CRADLE Vital Sign Alert and an education package into community and facility maternity care in low-resource settings could reduce a composite of all-cause maternal mortality or major morbidity (eclampsia and hysterectomy).

Methods

We did a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial in ten clusters across Africa, India, and Haiti, introducing the device into routine maternity care. Each cluster contained at least one secondary or tertiary hospital and their main referral facilities. Clusters crossed over from existing routine care to the CRADLE intervention in one of nine steps at 2-monthly intervals, with CRADLE devices replacing existing equipment at the randomly allocated timepoint. A computer-generated randomly allocated sequence determined the order in which the clusters received the intervention. Because of the nature of the intervention, this trial was not masked. Data were gathered monthly, with 20 time periods of 1 month. The primary composite outcome was at least one of eclampsia, emergency hysterectomy, and maternal death. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN41244132.

Findings

Between April 1, 2016, and Nov 30, 2017, among 536 223 deliveries, the primary outcome occurred in 4067 women, with 998 maternal deaths, 2692 eclampsia cases, and 681 hysterectomies. There was an 8% decrease in the primary outcome from 79·4 per 10 000 deliveries pre-intervention to 72·8 per 10 000 deliveries post-intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·86-0·97; p=0·0056). After planned adjustments for variation in event rates between and within clusters over time, the unexpected degree of variability meant we were unable to judge the benefit or harms of the intervention (OR 1·22, 95% CI 0·73-2·06; p=0·45).

Interpretation

There was an absolute 8% reduction in primary outcome during the trial, with no change in resources or staffing, but this reduction could not be directly attributed to the intervention due to variability. We encountered unanticipated methodological challenges with this trial design, which can provide valuable learning for future research and inform the trial design of future international stepped-wedge trials.

Funding

Newton Fund Global Research Programme: UK Medical Research Council; Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India; and UK Department of International Development.

SUBMITTER: Vousden N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6379820 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterventions aimed at reducing maternal mortality are increasingly complex. Understanding how complex interventions are delivered, to whom, and how they work is key in ensuring their rapid scale-up. We delivered a vital signs triage intervention into routine maternity care in eight low- and middle-income countries with the aim of reducing a composite outcome of morbidity and mortality. This was a pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial. In this study, we present the results of the mixed-methods process evaluation. The aim was to describe implementation and local context and integrate results to determine whether differences in the effect of the intervention across sites could be explained.MethodsThe duration and content of implementation, uptake of the intervention and its impact on clinical management were recorded. These were integrated with interviews (n = 36) and focus groups (n = 19) at 3 months and 6-9 months after implementation. In order to determine the effect of implementation on effectiveness, measures were ranked and averaged across implementation domains to create a composite implementation strength score and then correlated with the primary outcome.ResultsOverall, 61.1% (n = 2747) of health care providers were trained in the intervention (range 16.5% to 89.2%) over a mean of 10.8 days. Uptake and acceptability of the intervention was good. All clusters demonstrated improved availability of vital signs equipment. There was an increase in the proportion of women having their blood pressure measured in pregnancy following the intervention (79.2% vs. 97.6%; OR 1.30 (1.29-1.31)) and no significant change in referral rates (3.7% vs. 4.4% OR 0.89; (0.39-2.05)). Availability of resources and acceptable, effective referral systems influenced health care provider interaction with the intervention. There was no correlation between process measures within or between domains, or between the composite score and the primary outcome.ConclusionsThis process evaluation has successfully described the quantity and quality of implementation. Variation in implementation and context did not explain differences in the effectiveness of the intervention on maternal mortality and morbidity. We suggest future trials should prioritise in-depth evaluation of local context and clinical pathways.Trial registrationTrial registration: ISRCTN41244132 . Registered on 2 Feb 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) are increasingly popular in health-related research in both high- and low-resource settings. There may be specific ethical issues that researchers face when designing and conducting SW-CRTs in low-resource settings. Knowledge of these issues can help to improve the ethical conduct of SW-CRTs in a global health context. METHODS:We performed an ethical analysis of two studies using SW-CRT designs in low-resource settings: the Que Vivan Las Madres study conducted from 2014 to 2017 in Guatemala and the Atmiyata study conducted from 2017 to 2018 in rural parts of India. For both case studies, we identified and evaluated the classification of the study as research or nonresearch and the ethical issues regarding the justification of the design, including the delayed rollout of an intervention that had a promising effect. RESULTS:In our case studies, some minor ethical issues surfaced about the registration and stakeholder pressure on the order of randomization, but both included good justification for the design and delayed rollout. Our analysis did, however, demonstrate that careful consideration of the role of randomization and registration of the trials is important. DISCUSSION:SW-CRTs can provide an opportunity for rigorous evaluation of interventions destined to be rolled out on the basis of limited evidence. Furthermore, in SW-CRTs, the underlying objective is often to provide a robust evaluation of the effectiveness for generalized dissemination, and this makes the SW-CRT no less a research study than any other form of cluster randomized trial. CONCLUSION:The design and conduct of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials raises at least two ethical issues that need special consideration in both high- and low-resource settings: the justification for using the design, specifically the delayed rollout of the intervention to the control group, and the classification of the study as research or nonresearch. In our case studies, these issues did not seem to raise special ethical scrutiny in low-resource settings. Further ethical evaluation will hopefully result in specific ethical guidelines for the use of SW-CRTs in both high- and low-resource settings to contribute to responsible functioning of these trials and adequate protection of participants.

Project description:BackgroundThe CRADLE-3 trial is a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial aiming to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity by implementing a novel vital sign device (CRADLE Vital Sign Alert) and training package into routine maternity care in 10 low-income sites. The MRC Guidance on complex interventions proposes that interventions and implementation strategies be shaped by early phase piloting and development work. We present the findings of a three-month mixed-methodology feasibility study for this trial, describe how this was informed by the MRC guidance and the study design was refined.MethodsThe fidelity, dose, feasibility and acceptability of implementation and training materials were assessed in three representative non-trial sites (Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India) using multiple-choice questionnaires, evaluation of clinical management (action log), healthcare provider (HCP) semi-structured interviews and focus groups 4-10 weeks after implementation. Simultaneously, the 10 sites included in the main trial (eight countries) collected primary outcome data to inform the power calculation and randomisation allocation and assess the feasibility of data collection.ResultsThe package was implemented with high fidelity (85% of HCP trained, n?=?204). The questionnaires indicated a good understanding of device use with 75% of participants scoring >?75% (n?=?97; 90% of those distributed). Action logs were inconsistently completed but indicated that the majority of HCP responded appropriately to abnormal results. From 18 HCP interviews and two focus groups it was widely reported that the intervention improved capacity to make clinical decisions, escalate care and make appropriate referrals. Nine of the ten main trial sites achieved ethical approval for pilot data collection. Intensive care was an inconsistent marker of morbidity and stroke an infrequent outcome and therefore they were removed from the main trial composite outcome. Tools and methods of data collection were optimized and event rates used to inform randomisation.ConclusionsThis feasibility study demonstrates that the components of the intervention were acceptable, methods of implementing were successful and the main trial design would be feasible. Qualitative work identified key moderators that informed the main trial process evaluation. Changes to the training package, implementation strategy, study design and processes were identified to refine the implementation in the main trial.Trial registrationISRCTN41244132 ; Registered 24/11/2015.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The mental health treatment gap-the difference between those with mental health need and those who receive treatment-is high in low- and middle-income countries. Task-shifting has been used to address the shortage of mental health professionals, with a growing body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of mental health interventions delivered through task-shifting. However, very little research has focused on how to embed, support, and sustain task-shifting in government-funded systems with potential for scale up. The goal of the Building and Sustaining Interventions for Children (BASIC) study is to examine implementation policies and practices that predict adoption, fidelity, and sustainment of a mental health intervention in the education sector via teacher delivery and the health sector via community health volunteer delivery. METHODS:BASIC is a Hybrid Type II Implementation-Effectiveness trial. The study design is a stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial involving 7 sequences of 40 schools and 40 communities surrounding the schools. Enrollment consists of 120 teachers, 120 community health volunteers, up to 80 site leaders, and up to 1280 youth and one of their primary guardians. The evidence-based mental health intervention is a locally adapted version of Trauma-focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, called Pamoja Tunaweza. Lay counselors are trained and supervised in Pamoja Tunaweza by local trainers who are experienced in delivering the intervention and who participated in a Train-the-Trainer model of skills transfer. After the first sequence completes implementation, in-depth interviews are conducted with initial implementing sites' counselors and leaders. Findings are used to inform delivery of implementation facilitation for subsequent sequences' sites. We use a mixed methods approach including qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient implementation policies and practices that predict 3 implementation outcomes of interest: adoption, fidelity, and sustainment. We also examine child mental health outcomes and cost of the intervention in both the education and health sectors. DISCUSSION:The BASIC study will provide knowledge about how implementation of task-shifted mental health care can be supported in government systems that already serve children and adolescents. Knowledge about implementation policies and practices from BASIC can advance the science of implementation in low-resource contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03243396. Registered 9th August 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03243396.

Project description:BackgroundObstetric haemorrhage, sepsis and pregnancy hypertension account for more than 50% of maternal deaths worldwide. Early detection and effective management of these conditions relies on vital signs. The Microlife® CRADLE Vital Sign Alert (VSA) is an easy-to-use, accurate device that measures blood pressure and pulse. It incorporates a traffic-light early warning system that alerts all levels of healthcare provider to the need for escalation of care in women with obstetric haemorrhage, sepsis or pregnancy hypertension, thereby aiding early recognition of haemodynamic instability and preventing maternal mortality and morbidity. The aim of the trial was to determine whether implementation of the CRADLE intervention (the Microlife® CRADLE VSA device and CRADLE training package) into routine maternity care in place of existing equipment will reduce a composite outcome of maternal mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income country populations.MethodsThe CRADLE-3 trial was a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial of the CRADLE intervention compared to routine maternity care. Each cluster crossed from routine maternity care to the intervention at 2-monthly intervals over the course of 20 months (April 2016 to November 2017). All women identified as pregnant or within 6 weeks postpartum, presenting for maternity care in cluster catchment areas were eligible to participate. Primary outcome data (composite of maternal death, eclampsia and emergency hysterectomy per 10,000 deliveries) were collected at 10 clusters (Gokak, Belgaum, India; Harare, Zimbabwe; Ndola, Zambia; Lusaka, Zambia; Free Town, Sierra Leone; Mbale, Uganda; Kampala, Uganda; Cap Haitien, Haiti; South West, Malawi; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). This trial was informed by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions. A process evaluation was undertaken to evaluate implementation in each site and a cost-effectiveness evaluation will be undertaken.DiscussionAll aspects of this protocol have been evaluated in a feasibility study, with subsequent optimisation of the intervention. This trial will demonstrate the potential impact of the CRADLE intervention on reducing maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings. It is anticipated that the relatively low cost of the intervention and ease of integration into existing health systems will be of significant interest to local, national and international health policy-makers.Trial registrationISCRTN41244132. Registered on 2 February 2016. Prospective protocol modifications have been recorded and were communicated to the Ethics Committees and Trials Committees. The adapted Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Checklist and the SPIRIT Checklist are attached as Additional file 1.

Project description:The study was conducted to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of enhanced multi-disciplinary teams (EMDTs) vs. 'usual care' for the treatment of pressure ulcers in long term care (LTC) facilities in Ontario, CanadaWe conducted a multi-method study: a pragmatic cluster randomized stepped-wedge trial, ethnographic observation and in-depth interviews, and an economic evaluation. Long term care facilities (clusters) were randomly allocated to start dates of the intervention. An advance practice nurse (APN) with expertise in skin and wound care visited intervention facilities to educate staff on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, supported by an off-site hospital based expert multi-disciplinary wound care team via email, telephone, or video link as needed. The primary outcome was rate of reduction in pressure ulcer surface area (cm2/day) measured on before and after standard photographs by an assessor blinded to facility allocation. Secondary outcomes were time to healing, probability of healing, pressure ulcer incidence, pressure ulcer prevalence, wound pain, hospitalization, emergency department visits, utility, and cost.12 of 15 eligible LTC facilities were randomly selected to participate and randomized to start date of the intervention following the stepped wedge design. 137 residents with a total of 259 pressure ulcers (stage 2 or greater) were recruited over the 17 month study period. No statistically significant differences were found between control and intervention periods on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation demonstrated a mean reduction in direct care costs of $650 per resident compared to 'usual care'. The qualitative study suggested that onsite support by APN wound specialists was welcomed, and is responsible for reduced costs through discontinuation of expensive non evidence based treatments. Insufficient allocation of nursing home staff time to wound care may explain the lack of impact on healing.Enhanced multi-disciplinary wound care teams were cost effective, with most benefit through cost reduction initiated by APNs, but did not improve the treatment of pressure ulcers in nursing homes. Policy makers should consider the potential yield of strengthening evidence based primary care within LTC facilities, through outreach by APNs.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01232764.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether primary care outreach facilitation improves the quality of care for general practice patients from refugee backgrounds.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with stepped wedge allocation to early or late intervention groups.Setting, participants31 general practices in three metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne with high levels of refugee resettlement, November 2017 - August 2019.InterventionTrained facilitators made three visits to practices over six months, using structured action plans to help practice teams optimise routines of refugee care.Major outcome measureChange in proportion of patients from refugee backgrounds with documented health assessments (Medicare billing). Secondary outcomes were refugee status recording, interpreter use, and clinician-perceived difficulty in referring patients to appropriate dental, social, settlement, and mental health services.ResultsOur sample comprised 14 633 patients. The intervention was associated with an increase in the proportion of patients with Medicare-billed health assessments during the preceding six months, from 19.1% (95% CI, 18.6-19.5%) to 27.3% (95% CI, 26.7-27.9%; odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.42-2.50). The impact of the intervention was greater in smaller practices, practices with larger proportions of patients from refugee backgrounds, recent training in refugee health care, or higher baseline provision of health assessments for such patients. There was no impact on refugee status recording, interpreter use increased modestly, and reported difficulties in refugee-specific referrals to social, settlement and dental services were reduced.ConclusionsLow intensity practice facilitation may improve some aspects of primary care for people from refugee backgrounds. Facilitators employed by local health services could support integrated approaches to enhancing the quality of primary care for this vulnerable population.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001970235 (retrospective).