Dataset Information

Safe birth in cultural safety in southern Mexico: a pragmatic non-inferiority cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Available research on the contribution of traditional midwifery to safe motherhood focuses on retraining and redefining traditional midwives, assuming cultural prominence of Western ways. Our objective was to test if supporting traditional midwives on their own terms increases cultural safety (respect of Indigenous traditions) without worsening maternal health outcomes.

Methods

Pragmatic parallel-group cluster-randomised controlled non-inferiority trial in four municipalities in Guerrero State, southern Mexico, with Nahua, Na savi, Me'phaa and Nancue ñomndaa Indigenous groups. The study included all pregnant women in 80 communities and 30 traditional midwives in 40 intervention communities. Between July 2015 and April 2017, traditional midwives and their apprentices received a monthly stipend and support from a trained intercultural broker, and local official health personnel attended a workshop for improving attitudes towards traditional midwifery. Forty communities in two control municipalities continued with usual health services. Trained Indigenous female interviewers administered a baseline and follow-up household survey, interviewing all women who reported pregnancy or childbirth in all involved municipalities since January 2016. Primary outcomes included childbirth and neonatal complications, perinatal deaths, and postnatal complications, and secondary outcomes were traditional childbirth (at home, in vertical position, with traditional midwife and family), access and experience in Western healthcare, food intake, reduction of heavy work, and cost of health care.

Results

Among 872 completed pregnancies, women in intervention communities had lower rates of primary outcomes (perinatal deaths or childbirth or neonatal complications) (RD -0.06 95%CI - 0.09 to - 0.02) and reported more traditional childbirths (RD 0.10 95%CI 0.02 to 0.18). Among institutional childbirths, women from intervention communities reported more traditional management of placenta (RD 0.34 95%CI 0.21 to 0.48) but also more non-traditional cold-water baths (RD 0.10 95%CI 0.02 to 0.19). Among home-based childbirths, women from intervention communities had fewer postpartum complications (RD -0.12 95%CI - 0.27 to 0.01).

Conclusions

Supporting traditional midwifery increased culturally safe childbirth without worsening health outcomes. The fixed population size restricted our confidence for inference of non-inferiority for mortality outcomes. Traditional midwifery could contribute to safer birth among Indigenous communities if, instead of attempting to replace traditional practices, health authorities promoted intercultural dialogue.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered ISRCTN12397283 . Trial status: concluded.

SUBMITTER: Sarmiento I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762841 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndigenous women in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero face poor maternal health outcomes. Living as they do at the very periphery of the Western health system, they often receive low-quality care from health services that lack human and financial resources. Traditional health systems remain active in indigenous communities where traditional midwives accompany women through motherhood. Several interventions have explored training birth attendants in Western birthing skills, but little research has focussed on supporting traditional midwives by recognising their knowledge. This trial supports traditional midwifery in four indigenous groups and measures its impact on maternal health outcomes.MethodsThe study includes four indigenous populations in the State of Guerrero (Nahua, Na savi/Mixteco, Me'phaa/Tlapaneco and Nancue ñomndaa/Amuzgo), covering approximately 8000 households. A parallel-group cluster-randomised controlled trial will compare communities receiving usual care with communities where traditional midwives received support in addition to the usual care. The intervention was defined in collaboration with participants in a 2012 pilot study. Supported midwives will receive a small stipend, a scholarship to train one apprentice, and support from an intercultural broker to deal with Western health personnel; additionally, the health staff in the intervention municipalities will participate in workshops to improve understanding and attitudes towards authentic traditional midwives. A baseline and a final survey will measure changes in birth and pregnancy complications (primary outcomes), and changes in gender violence, access to healthcare, and engagement with traditional cultural activities (secondary outcomes). The project has ethical approval from the participating communities and the Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero.DiscussionIndigenous women at the periphery of Western health services do not benefit fully from the attenuated services which erode their own healthcare traditions. Western health service providers in indigenous communities often ignore traditional knowledge and resources, inadvertently or in ignorance, disrespecting indigenous cultures. Improved understanding between midwives and the official healthcare system can contribute to more appropriate referral of high-risk cases, improving the use of scarce resources while lowering costs of healthcare for indigenous families.Trial registrationISRCTN12397283 . Retrospectively registered on 6 December 2016.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased antimicrobial use despite low rates of bacterial co-infection. Prospective audit and feedback is recommended to optimise antibiotic prescribing, but high-quality evidence supporting its use for COVID-19 is absent. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of prospective audit and feedback in patients admitted to hospital for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsCOVASP was a prospective, pragmatic, non-inferiority, small-unit, cluster-randomised trial comparing prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care with standard of care alone in adults admitted to three hospitals in Edmonton, AB, Canada, with COVID-19 pneumonia. All patients aged at least 18 years who were admitted from the community to a designated study bed with microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the preceding 14 days were included if they had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower on room air, required supplemental oxygen, or had chest-imaging findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were excluded if they were transferred in from another acute care centre, enrolled in another clinical trial that involved antibiotic therapy, expected to progress to palliative care or death within 48 h of hospital admission, or managed by any member of the research team within 30 days of enrolment. COVID-19 unit and critical care unit beds were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) to the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group or the standard of care group. Patients were masked to their bed assignment but the attending physician and study team were not. The primary outcome was clinical status on postadmission day 15, measured using a seven-point ordinal scale. We used a non-inferiority margin of 0·5. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04896866, and is now closed.FindingsBetween March 1 and Oct 29, 2021, 1411 patients were screened and 886 were enrolled: 457 into the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group, of whom 429 completed the study, and 429 into the standard of care group, of whom 404 completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups, with an overall mean age of 56·7 years (SD 17·3) and a median baseline ordinal scale of 4·0 (IQR 4·0-5·0). 301 audit and feedback events were recorded in the intervention group and 215 recommendations were made, of which 181 (84%) were accepted. Despite lower antibiotic use in the intervention group than in the control group (length of therapy 364·9 vs 384·2 days per 1000 patient days), clinical status at postadmission day 15 was non-inferior (median ordinal score 2·0 [IQR 2·0-3·0] vs 2·0 [IQR 2·0-4·0]; p=0·37, Mann-Whitney U test). Neutropenia was uncommon in both the intervention group (13 [3%] of 420 patients) and the control group (20 [5%] of 396 patients), and acute kidney injury occurred at a similar rate in both groups (74 [18%] of 421 patients in the intervention group and 76 [19%] of 399 patients in the control group). No intervention-related deaths were recorded.InterpretationThis cluster-randomised clinical trial shows that prospective audit and feedback is safe and effective in optimising and reducing antibiotic use in adults admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Despite many competing priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, antimicrobial stewardship should remain a priority to mitigate the overuse of antibiotics in this population.FundingNone.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:BackgroundWith the increase in people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa and expanding eligibility criteria for antiretroviral therapy (ART), there is intense interest in the use of novel delivery models that allow understaffed health systems to successfully deal with an increasing demand for antiretroviral drugs (ARVs). This pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, evaluated a novel model of ARV community delivery: lay health workers (home-based carers [HBCs]) deliver ARVs to the homes of patients who are clinically stable on ART, while nurses and physicians deliver standard facility-based care for patients who are clinically unstable. Specifically, the trial aimed to assess whether the ARV community delivery model performed at least equally well in averting virological failure as the standard of care (facility-based care for all ART patients).Methods and findingsThe study took place from March 1, 2016, to October 27, 2017. All (48) healthcare facilities in Dar es Salaam that provided ART and had an affiliated team of public-sector HBCs were randomized 1:1 to either (i) ARV community delivery (intervention) or (ii) the standard of care (control). Our prespecified primary endpoint was the proportion of adult non-pregnant ART patients with virological failure at the end of the study period. The prespecified margin of non-inferiority was a risk ratio (RR) of 1.45. The mean follow-up period was 326 days. We obtained intent-to-treat (ITT) RRs using a log-binomial model adjusting standard errors for clustering at the level of the healthcare facility. A total of 2,172 patients were enrolled at intervention (1,163 patients) and control (1,009 patients) facilities. Of the 1,163 patients in the intervention arm, 516 (44.4%) were both clinically stable on ART and opted to receive ARVs in their homes or at another meeting point of their choosing in the community. At the end of the study period, 10.9% (95/872) of patients in the control arm and 9.7% (91/943) in the intervention arm were failing virologically. The ITT RR for virological failure demonstrated non-inferiority of the ARV community delivery model (RR 0.89 [1-sided 95% CI 0.00-1.18]). We observed no significant difference between study arms in self-reported patient healthcare expenditures over the last 6 months before study exit. Of those who received ARVs in the community, 97.2% (95% CI 94.7%-98.7%) reported being either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the program. Other than loss to follow-up (18.9% in the intervention and 13.6% in the control arm), the main limitation of this trial was that substantial decongestion of healthcare facilities was not achieved, thus making the logic for our preregistered ITT approach (which includes those ineligible to receive ARVs at home in the intervention sample) less compelling.ConclusionsIn this study, an ARV community delivery model performed at least as well as the standard of care regarding the critical health indicator of virological failure. The intervention did not significantly reduce patient healthcare expenditures, but satisfaction with the program was high and it is likely to save patients time. Policy-makers should consider piloting, evaluating, and scaling more ambitious ARV community delivery programs that can reach higher proportions of ART patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02711293.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions have small/moderate effects on clinical practice, but few trials explicitly compare different forms of feedback. There is growing recognition that intervention development should be theory-informed, and that comprehensive reporting of intervention design is required by potential users of trial findings. The paper describes intervention development for the Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) study, a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial in 262 Scottish general practices.MethodsThe NHS chose to implement a feedback intervention to utilise a new resource, new Prescribing Information System (newPIS). The development phase required selection of high-risk prescribing outcome measures and design of intervention components: (1) educational material (the usual care comparison), (2) feedback of practice rates of high-risk prescribing received by both intervention arms and (3) a theory-informed behaviour change component to be received by one intervention arm. Outcome measures, educational material and feedback design, were developed with a National Health Service Advisory Group. The behaviour change component was informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Action Process Approach. A focus group elicitation study and an email Delphi study with general practitioners (GPs) identified key attitudes and barriers of responding to the prescribing feedback. Behaviour change techniques were mapped to the psychological constructs, and the content was informed by the results of the elicitation and Delphi study.ResultsSix high-risk prescribing measures were selected in a consensus process based on importance and feasibility. Educational material and feedback design were based on current NHS Scotland practice and Advisory Group recommendations. The behaviour change component was resource constrained in development, mirroring what is feasible in an NHS context. Four behaviour change interventions were developed and embedded in five quarterly rounds of feedback targeting attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and action planning (2×).ConclusionsThe paper describes a process which is feasible to use in the resource-constrained environment of NHS-led intervention development and documents the intervention to make its design and implementation explicit to potential users of the trial findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01602705.

Project description:BackgroundBullous pemphigoid is a blistering skin disorder with increased mortality. We tested whether a strategy of starting treatment with doxycycline gives acceptable short-term blister control while conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral corticosteroids.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of adults with bullous pemphigoid (three or more blisters at two or more sites and linear basement membrane IgG or C3). Participants were randomly assigned to doxycycline (200 mg per day) or prednisolone (0·5 mg/kg per day) using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by baseline severity (3-9, 10-30, and >30 blisters for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively). Localised adjuvant potent topical corticosteroids (<30 g per week) were permitted during weeks 1-3. The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants with three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks. We assumed that doxycycline would be 25% less effective than corticosteroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority. The primary safety outcome was the proportion with severe, life-threatening, or fatal (grade 3-5) treatment-related adverse events by 52 weeks. Analysis (modified intention to treat [mITT] for the superiority safety analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regression model adjusting for baseline disease severity, age, and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. The trial is registered at ISRCTN, number ISRCTN13704604.FindingsBetween March 1, 2009, and Oct 31, 2013, 132 patients were randomly assigned to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone from 54 UK and seven German dermatology centres. Mean age was 77·7 years (SD 9·7) and 173 (68%) of 253 patients had moderate-to-severe baseline disease. For those starting doxycycline, 83 (74%) of 112 patients had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks compared with 92 (91%) of 101 patients on prednisolone, an adjusted difference of 18·6% (90% CI 11·1-26·1) favouring prednisolone (upper limit of 90% CI, 26·1%, within the predefined 37% margin). Related severe, life-threatening, and fatal events at 52 weeks were 18% (22 of 121) for those starting doxycycline and 36% (41 of 113) for prednisolone (mITT), an adjusted difference of 19·0% (95% CI 7·9-30·1), p=0·001.InterpretationStarting patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control in bullous pemphigoid and significantly safer in the long-term.FundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:IntroductionAdalimumab is effective for maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) at a dose of 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks. However, adalimumab is associated with (long-term) adverse events and is costly. The aim of this study is to demonstrate non-inferiority and cost-effectiveness of disease activity guided adalimumab interval lengthening compared to standard dosing of every other week (EOW).Methods and analysisThe Lengthening Adalimumab Dosing Interval (LADI) study is a pragmatic, multicentre, open label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Non-inferiority is reached if the difference in cumulative incidence of persistent (>8 weeks) flares does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%. 174 CD patients on adalimumab maintenance therapy in long-term (>9 months) clinical and biochemical remission will be included (C-reactive protein (CRP) <10 mg/L, faecal calprotectin (FC) <150 µg/g, Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) <5). Patients will be randomised 2:1 into the intervention (adalimumab interval lengthening) or control group (adalimumab EOW). The intervention group will lengthen the adalimumab administration interval to every 3 weeks, and after 24 weeks to every 4 weeks. Clinical and biochemical disease activity will be monitored every 12 weeks by physician global assessment, HBI, CRP and FC. In case of disease flare, dosing will be increased. A flare is defined as two of three of the following criteria; FC>250 µg/g, CRP≥10 mg/l, HBI≥5. Secondary outcomes include cumulative incidence of transient flares, adverse events, predictors for successful dose reduction and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (registration number NL58948.091.16). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.Trial registration numbersEudraCT registry (2016-003321-42); Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT03172377); Dutch trial registry (NTRID6417).