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.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

Statin use and survival in colorectal cancer: Results from a population-based cohort study and an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between statin use and survival in a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort and perform an updated meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of any association.

METHODS: A cohort of 8391 patients with newly diagnosed Dukes' A-C CRC (2009-2012) was identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. This cohort was linked to the Prescribing Information System and the National Records of Scotland Death Records (until January 2015) to identify 1064 colorectal cancer-specific deaths. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality by statin use were calculated using time dependent Cox regression models. The systematic review included relevant studies published before January 2016. Meta-analysis techniques were used to derive combined HRs for associations between statin use and cancer-specific and overall mortality.

RESULTS: In the Scottish cohort, statin use before diagnosis (HR=0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94), but not after (HR=0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.05), was associated with significantly improved cancer-specific mortality. The systematic review identified 15 relevant studies. In the meta-analysis, there was consistent (I(2)=0%,heterogeneity P=0.57) evidence of a reduction in cancer-specific mortality with statin use before diagnosis in 6 studies (n=86,622, pooled HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.86) but this association was less apparent and more heterogeneous (I(2)=67%,heterogeneity P=0.03) with statin use after diagnosis in 4 studies (n=19,152, pooled HR=0.84, 95% CI 0.68-1.04).

CONCLUSION: In a Scottish CRC cohort and updated meta-analysis there was some evidence that statin use was associated with improved survival. However, these associations were weak in magnitude and, particularly for post-diagnosis use, varied markedly between studies.