First steps: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) program compared to routine care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background: Evidence from the USA suggests that the home-based Family Nurse Partnership program (FNP), extending from early pregnancy until infants are 24 months, can reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect throughout childhood. FNP is now widely available in the UK. A new variant, Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) offers similar content but in a group context and for a shorter time, until infants are 12 months old. Each group comprises 8 to 12 women with similar expected delivery dates and their partners. Its implementation has been established but there is no evidence of its effectiveness.

Methods/Design: The study comprises a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed to identify the benefits of gFNP compared to standard care. Participants (not eligible for FNP) must be either aged <20 years at their last menstrual period (LMP) with one or more previous live births, or aged 20 to 24 at LMP with low educational qualifications and no previous live births. 'Low educational qualifications' is defined as not having both Maths and English Language GCSE at grade C or higher or, if they have both, no more than four in total at grade C or higher. Exclusions are: under 20 years and previously received home-based FNP and, in either age group, severe psychotic mental illness or not able to communicate in English. Consenting women are randomly allocated (minimized by site and maternal age group) when between 10 and 16 weeks pregnant to either to the 44 session gFNP program or to standard care after the collection of baseline information. Researchers are blind to group assignment. The primary outcomes at 12 months are child abuse potential based on the revised Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory and parent/infant interaction coded using the CARE Index based on a video-taped interaction. Secondary outcomes are maternal depression, parenting stress, health related quality of life, social support, and use of services.

Discussion: This is the first study of the effectiveness of gFNP in the UK. Results should inform decision-making about its delivery alongside universal services, potentially enabling a wider range of families to benefit from the FNP curriculum and approach to supporting parenting.

Behavioural outcomes at 3 years of age among late preterm infants admitted to neonatal intensive care: a cohort study

Objective: Examine the behavioural outcomes at age 3 years of late preterm infants (LPIs) who were admitted to neonatal intensive care (NIC) in comparison with LPIs who were not admitted.
Method: This cohort study prospectively recruited 225 children born late preterm (34–36+6 weeks gestation) in 2006 in Northern Ireland, now aged 3 years. Two groups were compared: LPIs who received NIC (study; n=103) and LPIs who did not receive NIC (control; n=122). Parents/guardians completed the Child Behaviour Checklist/1½-5. Descriptive maternal and infant data were also collected.
Results: As expected LPI children admitted to NIC had higher medical risk than the non-admitted comparison group (increased caesarean section, born at earlier gestation, lower birth weight and an episode of resuscitation at birth). LPIs admitted to NIC scored higher on the Child Behaviour Checklist/1½-5 compared with those who were not admitted indicating more behavioural problems; this was statistically significant for the Aggressive Behaviour Subscale (z=−2.36) and the Externalising Problems Scale (z=−2.42). The group difference on the Externalising Problems Scale was no longer significant after controlling for gender, gestational age and deprivation score.
Conclusions: This study provides valuable data on the behaviour at age 3 years of LPIs admitted to NIC compared with LPIs not admitted to NIC. Further research would be beneficial to explore medical and psychosocial explanations for observed differences between groups using large prospective cohort studies.

The influence of parents, older siblings, and non-parental care on infant development at nine months of age

Background: The majority of research examining the influence of social environment on early child development suggests benefits to two-parent households, but contradictory evidence for the effects of siblings. The aims of the present study were to examine the influence of the child's proximal social environment, and the effects of interactions between socioeconomic status and social environment on developmental outcomes.

Methods: Primary caregivers of a representative sample of 10,748 nine-month-old infants in Ireland completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire and provided information on social environment. Adjustment was made for infant and maternal characteristics, household income, and area where the child was living at the time of the study. Further analyses tested for interactions between social environment and household income.

Results: Binary logistic regressions indicated no effects for number of parents in the household. However, the presence of siblings in the household was a consistent predictor of failing to reach milestones in communication, gross motor, problem-solving, and personal-social development. Furthermore, there was a gradient of increasing likelihood of failing in gross motor, problem-solving, and personal-social development with increasing numbers of siblings. Care by a grandparent decreased the likelihood of failing in communication and personal-social development.

Conclusions:These findings do not support the majority of research that finds positive benefits for two-parent households. Similarly, the findings suggest limited effects for non-parental care. However, the observed negative effects of siblings support both the confluence and resource dilution models of sibling effect. Examination of follow-up data may elucidate current findings.

'Every pregnant woman needs a midwife'--the experiences of HIV affected women in maternity care

TITLE: 'Every pregnant woman needs a midwife'-the experiences of HIV affected women in Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: to explore HIV positive women's experiences of pregnancy and maternity care, with a focus on their interactions with midwives.

DESIGN: a prospective qualitative study.

SETTING: regional HIV unit in Northern Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS: 22 interviews were conducted with 10 women at different stages of their reproductive trajectories.

FINDINGS: the pervasive presence of HIV related stigma threatened the women's experience of pregnancy and care. The key staff attributes that facilitated a positive experience were knowledge and experience, empathy and understanding of their unique needs and continuity of care.

KEY CONCLUSIONS: pregnancy in the context of HIV, whilst offering a much needed sense of normality, also increases woman's sense of anxiety and vulnerability and therefore the need for supportive interventions that affirm normality is intensified. A maternity team approach, with a focus on providing 'balanced care' could meet all of the woman and child's medical needs, whilst also emphasising the normalcy of pregnancy.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models’ characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0–32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.