Dataset Information

Breastfeeding peer counselling for mothers of preterm neonates: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Among preterm infants, mother's own milk feeding reduces neonatal morbidity and decreases the length of hospital stay. However, breastfeeding rates and duration are lower than among term infants. It is reported that peer counselling is effective in increasing breast feeding in term infants in low-income and middle-income countries, but results are mixed in high-income countries. We aim to investigate herein whether peer counselling may be a feasible and effective breastfeeding support among preterm infants in French-speaking high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Eight European centres will participate in this stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. We plan to include 2400 hospitalised neonates born before 35 gestational weeks. Each centre will begin with an observational period. Every 3?months, a randomised cluster (centre) will begin the interventional period with peer counsellors until the end of the study. The counsellors will be trained and supervised by the trained nurses. They will have a weekly contact with participating mothers, with a face-to-face meeting at least once every fortnight. During these meetings, peer counsellors will listen to mothers' concerns, share experiences and help the mother with their own knowledge of breast feeding. The main outcome is breastfeeding rate at 2 months corrected age. Secondary outcomes are breastfeeding rates at hospital discharge and at 6 months, breastfeeding duration and severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. The mental health of the mother, mother-infant bonding and infant behaviour will be assessed using self-report questionnaires. A neurodevelopmental follow-up, a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-consequence at 2 years corrected age will be performed among infants in a French subgroup. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:French, Belgian and Swiss ethics committees gave their agreement. Publications in peer-reviewed journals are planned on breast feeding, mental health and economic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03156946.

SUBMITTER: Laborie S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045006 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Breastfeeding peer counselling for mothers of preterm neonates: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

Laborie Sophie S Denis Angelique A Horsch Antje A Occelli Pauline P Margier Jennifer J Morisod Harari Mathilde M Claris Olivier O Touzet Sandrine S Fischer Fumeaux Celine Julie CJ

BMJ open 20200130 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Among preterm infants, mother's own milk feeding reduces neonatal morbidity and decreases the length of hospital stay. However, breastfeeding rates and duration are lower than among term infants. It is reported that peer counselling is effective in increasing breast feeding in term infants in low-income and middle-income countries, but results are mixed in high-income countries. We aim to investigate herein whether peer counselling may be a feasible and effective breastfeedi ...[more]

PMID: 32005780

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo test whether providing relevant clinical trial registry information to peer reviewers evaluating trial manuscripts decreases discrepancies between registered and published trial outcomes.DesignStepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial, with clusters comprised of eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal between 1 November 2018 and 31 October 2019.SettingThirteen medical journals.ParticipantsManuscripts were eligible for inclusion if they were submitted to a participating journal during the study period, presented results from the primary analysis of a clinical trial, and were peer reviewed.InterventionsDuring the control phase, there were no changes to pre-existing peer review practices. After journals crossed over into the intervention phase, peer reviewers received a data sheet describing whether trials were registered, the initial registration and enrolment dates, and the registered primary outcome(s) when enrolment began.Main outcome measureThe presence of a clearly defined, prospectively registered primary outcome consistent with the primary outcome in the published trial manuscript, as determined by two independent outcome assessors.ResultsWe included 419 manuscripts (243 control and 176 intervention). Participating journals published 43% of control-phase manuscripts and 39% of intervention-phase manuscripts (model-estimated percentage difference between intervention and control trials = -10%, 95% CI -25% to 4%). Among the 173 accepted trials, published primary outcomes were consistent with clearly defined, prospectively registered primary outcomes in 40 of 105 (38%) control-phase trials and 27 of 68 (40%) intervention-phase trials. A linear mixed model did not show evidence of a statistically significant primary outcome effect from the intervention (estimated difference between intervention and control=-6% (90% CI -27% to 15%); one-sided p value=0.68).ConclusionsThese results do not support use of the tested intervention as implemented here to increase agreement between prospectively registered and published trial outcomes. Other approaches are needed to improve the quality of outcome reporting of clinical trials.Trial registration numberISRCTN41225307.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.

Project description:IntroductionClinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manuscripts differ from pre-specified study outcomes, is common. Trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov have the potential to help identify and stop selective outcome reporting during peer review by allowing peer reviewers to compare outcomes between registry entries and submitted manuscripts. However, the persistently high rate of selective outcome reporting among published clinical trials indicates that the current peer review process at most journals does not effectively address the problem of selective outcome reporting.Methods and analysisPRE-REPORT is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that will test whether providing peer reviewers with a summary of registered, pre-specified primary trial outcomes decreases inconsistencies between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes. Peer reviewed manuscripts describing clinical trial results will be included. Eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal during the study period will comprise each cluster. After an initial control phase, journals will transition to the intervention phase in random order, after which peer reviewers will be emailed registry information consisting of the date of registration and any prospectively defined primary outcomes. Blinded outcome assessors will compare registered and published primary outcomes for all included trials. The primary PRE-REPORT outcome is the presence of a published primary outcome that is consistent with a prospectively defined primary outcome in the study's trial registry. The primary outcome will be analysed using a mixed effect logistical regression model to compare results between the intervention and control phases.Ethics and disseminationThe Cooper Health System Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not meet criteria for human subject research. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN41225307; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundImproving oxygen systems may improve clinical outcomes for hospitalised children with acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI). This paper reports the effects of an improved oxygen system on mortality and clinical practices in 12 general, paediatric, and maternity hospitals in southwest Nigeria.Methods and findingsWe conducted an unblinded stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial comparing three study periods: baseline (usual care), pulse oximetry introduction, and stepped introduction of a multifaceted oxygen system. We collected data from clinical records of all admitted neonates (<28 days old) and children (28 days to 14 years old). Primary analysis compared the full oxygen system period to the pulse oximetry period and evaluated odds of death for children, children with ALRI, neonates, and preterm neonates using mixed-effects logistic regression. Secondary analyses included the baseline period (enabling evaluation of pulse oximetry introduction) and evaluated mortality and practice outcomes on additional subgroups. Three hospitals received the oxygen system intervention at 4-month intervals. Primary analysis included 7,716 neonates and 17,143 children admitted during the 2-year stepped crossover period (November 2015 to October 2017). Compared to the pulse oximetry period, the full oxygen system had no association with death for children (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.46; p = 0.721) or children with ALRI (aOR 1.09; 95% CI 0.50-2.41; p = 0.824) and was associated with an increased risk of death for neonates overall (aOR 1.45; 95% CI 1.04-2.00; p = 0.026) but not preterm/low-birth-weight neonates (aOR 1.30; 95% CI 0.76-2.23; p = 0.366). Secondary analyses suggested that the introduction of pulse oximetry improved oxygen practices prior to implementation of the full oxygen system and was associated with lower odds of death for children with ALRI (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.12-0.92; p = 0.035) but not for children, preterm neonates, or neonates overall (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60-1.58, p = 0.913; aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.56-2.26, p = 0.762; aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57-1.43, p = 0.651). Limitations of our study are a lower-than-anticipated power to detect change in mortality outcomes (low event rates, low participant numbers, high intracluster correlation) and major contextual changes related to the 2016-2017 Nigerian economic recession that influenced care-seeking and hospital function during the study period, potentially confounding mortality outcomes.ConclusionsWe observed no mortality benefit for children and a possible higher risk of neonatal death following the introduction of a multifaceted oxygen system compared to introducing pulse oximetry alone. Where some oxygen is available, pulse oximetry may improve oxygen usage and clinical outcomes for children with ALRI.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000341325.

Project description:BackgroundOxygen is a life-saving, essential medicine that is important for the treatment of many common childhood conditions. Improved oxygen systems can reduce childhood pneumonia mortality substantially. However, providing oxygen to children is challenging, especially in small hospitals with weak infrastructure and low human resource capacity.Methods/designThis trial will evaluate the implementation of improved oxygen systems at secondary-level hospitals in southwest Nigeria. The improved oxygen system includes: a standardised equipment package; training of clinical and technical staff; infrastructure support (including improved power supply); and quality improvement activities such as supportive supervision. Phase 1 will involve the introduction of pulse oximetry alone; phase 2 will involve the introduction of the full, improved oxygen system package. We have based the intervention design on a theory-based analysis of previous oxygen projects, and used quality improvement principles, evidence-based teaching methods, and behaviour-change strategies. We are using a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design with participating hospitals randomised to receive an improved oxygen system at 4-month steps (three hospitals per step). Our mixed-methods evaluation will evaluate effectiveness, impact, sustainability, process and fidelity. Our primary outcome measures are childhood pneumonia case fatality rate and inpatient neonatal mortality rate. Secondary outcome measures include a range of clinical, quality of care, technical, and health systems outcomes. The planned study duration is from 2015 to 2018.DiscussionOur study will provide quality evidence on the effectiveness of improved oxygen systems, and how to better implement and scale-up oxygen systems in resource-limited settings. Our results should have important implications for policy-makers, hospital administrators, and child health organisations in Africa and globally.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000341325 . Retrospectively registered on 6 March 2017.

Project description:IntroductionImproving access to effective contraception has the potential to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. Community pharmacists could play an expanded role in contraceptive counselling and referral to contraceptive prescribers particularly when women are already attending community pharmacy to obtain emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) or to have medical abortion (MA) medicines dispensed. The ALLIANCE trial aims to compare the subsequent uptake of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) in women seeking ECP or MA medicines, who receive the ALLIANCE community pharmacy-based intervention with those who do not receive the intervention.Methods and analysisALLIANCE is a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster randomised trial in Australian community pharmacies. The ALLIANCE intervention involves community pharmacists delivering structured, patient-centred, effectiveness-based contraceptive counselling (and a referral to a contraceptive prescriber where appropriate) to women seeking either ECPs or to have MA medicines dispensed. Women participants will be recruited by participating pharmacists. A total of 37 pharmacies and 1554 participants will be recruited. Pharmacies commence in the control phase and are randomised to transition to the intervention phase at different time points (steps). The primary outcome is the self-reported use of effective contraception at 4 months; secondary outcomes include use of effective contraception and the rate of pregnancies or induced abortions at 12 months. A process and economic evaluation of the trial will also be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (#34563). An explanatory statement will be provided and written consent will be obtained from all participants (pharmacy owner, pharmacist and women) before their commencement in the trial. Dissemination will occur through a knowledge exchange workshop, peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations, social media and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12622001024730.

Dataset Information

Breastfeeding peer counselling for mothers of preterm neonates: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Breastfeeding peer counselling for mothers of preterm neonates: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets