Category Archives: PPI

Inviting your views … — The OptiBreech Project

From Tisha Dasgupta, OptiBreech Research Assistant, re-blog from The OptiBreech Project: We would like to invite women, birthing people and their families who have experienced a breech pregnancy at term to attend an online focus group discussion on Thursday 10th December 10.30-11.30am to be conducted via Microsoft Teams.  Anyone with an interest and experience of breech pregnancy can participate.

The purpose of this meeting will be to get your perspective on the following issues: 

A core outcome set is a minimum set of outcomes that should be collected in every study about a topic, in this case vaginal breech birth at term. Making these consistent means that we can better compare and combine studies, and ensure research meets the needs of those who use it.

To develop a core outcomes set, we have conducted a systematic review of the available literature relevant to this project (brief summary below). However, we need your input to determine if these outcomes are important to the people who will use the results of research to make decisions, and how important each is. Does this meet all your informational needs or are there outcomes that have not been identified, which you think is important to record? 

Do you think it is important to include salutogenically focused outcomes that emphasize positive well-being of the mother and newborn such as maternal satisfaction, relationship with baby etc.? If so, which factors would you like to see and how important do you think these are? 

The next stage will be to ask both professionals and service users to rate the importance of the outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. But before we do this, we want to insure all of the outcomes important to you are included.

You are welcome to share your feedback directly during the focus group meeting or by emailing Tisha Dasgupta (tisha.dasgupta@kcl.ac.uk), the OptiBreech Research Assistant, at any point. If you are unable to make it and would like to contribute, or have further feedback after the session, please also contact Tisha.

While we do not require written consent for your participation in the meeting, it is important to let you know that the session will be recorded. We intend to take the feedback you provide into consideration while designing the next stage of this project: a multinational Delphi study. No identifiable information will be used such as direct quotes or anecdotes, and we will only report summary data.  

Thank you very much for your consideration. Please could you send your RSVP to tisha.dasgupta@kcl.ac.uk by Monday, 7th December to confirm your attendance at the session? She will be in touch thereafter to provide you access to the online meeting.

More information:

The COMET Database

The CROWN initiative

We’d also love to hear your views on the information presented on the OptiBreech website!


Overall summary of the Systematic Review

A systematic review of all relevant literature was conducted to identify outcomes, definitions and measurements previously reported in effectiveness studies of breech births at term. 108 studies were identified comprising of systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and comparative observational studies, with full-text available in English. Below are the most common outcome measures, with a percentage of how many studies reported them. These are the top 10 most frequently reported measures in each category grouped by neonatal, maternal, features of labour, and long-term maternal outcomes respectively.

Neonatal outcomes

Outcome measure% studies reported
APGAR score at 5 minutes78.7
Perinatal or neonatal mortality68.5
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)59.3
Neonatal birth trauma/morbidity53.7
Brachial plexus injury / peripheral nerve injury38.0
Low umbilical artery pH35.2
Bone fracture33.3
Neonatal seizures/convulsions31.5
Intubation/ventilation29.6
Hematoma (cephalic or subdural)20.4

Maternal outcomes

Maternal mortality24.1
Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) 16.7
PPH requiring blood transfusion14.8
Other serious maternal morbidity/other complications14.8
Genital tract trauma13.0
Wound infection requiring prolonged hospital stay/re-admission12.0
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) requiring anticoagulant therapy10.2
Prolonged hospital stay9.3
Hysterectomy8.3
Anaemia7.4

Features of labour

Vaginal Delivery97.2
Emergency Caesarean88.0
Elective caesarean80.6
Induction of labour24.1
Instrumental vaginal delivery18.5
Manoeuvres used17.6
Regional anaesthesia15.7
Trial of labour14.8
Actual mode of birth13.9
Duration of delivery/second stage13.9

Long-term maternal outcomes

Urinary incontinence6.5
Breastfeeding complications5.6
Faecal incontinence5.6
Postnatal depression5.6
CS in subsequent delivery5.6
Long term abdominal pain4.6
Dyspareunia4.6
Flatus incontinence4.6
Relationship with partner4.6
Long term perineal pain3.7

Seeking your thoughts on further research…

Image by Kate Evans

Emma Spillane is seeking your thoughts on a new piece of research prior to its submission for ethics approval. If you have experienced a breech pregnancy within the last 5 years in the UK, either yourself or your partner, or you work with pregnant women in a non-medical capacity (e.g. doula, antenatal teacher, breastfeeding supporter, etc.), I would love to hear from you.

I am conducting research as part of my Masters exploring breech childbirth preferences of expectant parents to understand if there is demand for breech birth services within the NHS and explore the factors which influence parents decision-making. At this stage, I would like your feedback on the suggested design of the trial, to ensure that the information resulting from the research will be useful to those considering breech options. For those of you who would like to remain with the project I am forming a Breech Advisory Group provide feedback at further stages in the project such as analysing the results.

If you are interested in participating in my research in this way, please read the plain text summary of the project below and complete a short survey by following the link after the research summary.

Discussing breech birth in Ethiopia

STUDY SUMMARY

Approximately 3-4% of babies at term present in the breech position (bottom or feet first) (Impey et al. 2017). The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ (RCOG) most recent clinical guideline on Management of Breech Presentation recommends that pregnant women should be offered choice on mode of birth for breech presentation at term(after 37 weeks’ gestation) (Impey et al, 2017).  Despite this recommendation, only 0.4% of all breech babies in the UK are born vaginally (Hospital Episode Statistics, 2017), and this figure includes pre-term breech births where breech presentation is more common (Impey et al. 2017).  These statistics suggest that either the demand for vaginal breech birth is low, or the choice of mode of birth is not being consistently offered.  This study aims to explore this enigma by providing empirical evidence necessary to inform maternity services on the requirement of breech birth services. 

Current evaluations of demand for vaginal breech birth services have been limited by the quality and impartiality of information parents are able to access via their maternity services.    For example, research has shown that women have difficulties finding information to support their choices and are pressured into making the decision based upon practitioner preference (Petrovska et al, 2016).  An investigation carried out in the Netherlands, found that one third of parents would prefer to have their babies born vaginally (Kok, 2008).   However, little is currently known about parents’ preferences in England.  

This research will evaluate the extent of expectant parents’ preferences for vaginal breech birth prior to counselling, and the factors that influence these preferences, using personal interview surveys (Bhattacherjee, 2012).  All women presenting with suspected breech presentation at a large London based teaching hospital – St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – will be given information about this study along with their Trust approved mode of birth information leaflet during their routine antenatal appointment at 36 weeks of pregnancy.  As per Trust clinical protocol, women with suspected breech presentation will be offered a referral for an Obstetric Ultrasound Scan (OUSS) for confirmation of fetal presentation.  During this routine OUSS appointment, either prior to or following the scan taking place, parents will be approached by the researcher and invited to take part in an interview on their preferred mode of birth and the reasons behind these preferences. Both parents, if present, will be interviewed separately.  Parents will already have been given information about the study in the form of a Participant Information Sheet PIS) by the clinician referring them for an OUSS. The timing of the interview has been chosen because it fits with the participating Trusts usual pathway of care. Parents are informed there may be long waiting times due to OUSS being arranged at short notice.

The findings from this research will provide evidence on the following:

  1. the demand for a vaginal breech birth service, based on written information prior to individualised counselling;
  2. the factors influencing this demand, which can be used to improve shared decision-making training and taken into account when planning future research; and
  3. a predicted service planning model for a fully integrated breech continuity team within the host Trust.

Data on parents’ preferences for mode of birth will be reported descriptively as a percentage. Qualitative data regarding parents’ reasons for their preferences of mode of birth will be analysed thematically.

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/8VR9J2K

Emma

Seeking your thoughts on new research …

BBN

Illustration by Kate Evans

We are seeking your thoughts on two new pieces of research currently in the development stage. If you have experienced a breech pregnancy within the last 5 years in the UK, either yourself or your partner, or you work with pregnant women in a non-medical capacity (e.g. doula, antenatal teacher, breastfeeding supporter, etc.), we would love to hear from you.

Emma Spillane would like your feedback on an Information Leaflet for people pregnant with breech-presenting babies. The leaflet will be used in research to determine an approximate level of demand for vaginal breech birth, with balanced counselling and adequate support.

elevate&rotate

Talking through elevate and rotate

Shawn Walker is preparing an application for a large grant to fund a pilot randomised controlled trial. No term breech trials have been published since 2000 (Hannah et al). The team around this project would like to gather a Breech Advisory Group composed of people who have experienced a breech pregnancy within the last 5 years in the UK, either yourself or your partner, and non-medical birth workers, such as doulas and antenatal teachers. At this stage, we would like your feedback on the suggested design of the trial, to ensure that the information resulting from the research will be useful to those considering breech options. For those of you who would like to remain with the project if funding is obtained, we will send regular updates with opportunities to provide feedback at stages like final project design, advertising the trial and analysing the results.ShawnPortsmouth

If you are interested in participating in our research in this way, please complete the form below and one of us will be in touch.

“No time to put a plan in place”

Thinking through the practicalities of breech advocacy.

Midwives and obstetricians who would like give women with breech presenting babies more support to plan a vaginal breech birth (VBB) need to think through the wider picture of how this happens in order to become effective advocates. In my experience of doing breech advocacy throughout the post-Term Breech Trial era, women often get in touch after 38 or 39 weeks to try to organise support for a VBB. Achieving this requires quite a bit of discussion and negotiation in quite a short period of time.

This post makes visible some ‘common experiences’ in women’s vaginal breech birth journeys. Services differ in every area, so it won’t be every woman’s experience. And increasingly, forward-thinking NHS Trusts are working with advocacy organisations (such as the Coalition for Breech Birth, Breech Birth UK and BBANZ) to develop woman-centred care pathways which meet women’s needs rather than restrict their choices, like this team in Sheffield.

Common experience Other possibilities
33 weeks Antenatal clinic visit. Midwife or woman suspects breech. Woman told not to worry, most babies will turn. Informed about / referred for moxibustion treatment. Not associated with risk of harm. Shown to reduce breech and CS when used with acupuncture. Shown to reduce use of syntocinon before and during labour regardless of presentation. (Coyle et al, Cochrane Review, 2012)
36 weeks Palpation in antenatal clinic. Midwife suspects breech and refers for USS. Woman receives counselling re: ECV, to return at a later date. Is told discussion re: mode of birth will occur after unsuccessful ECV. One-stop shop breech clinic. Scan, counselling and ECV performed by a midwife or doctor with specialist training. If unsuccessful/declined, mode of birth preference documented. To return for further counselling.
37 weeks Counselling repeated by a different professional, who may have different personal preferences. External cephalic version attempted. If unsuccessful, asked to return for counselling re: mode of birth in consultant clinic. Returns to breech clinic for second attempt at ECV. Sees same practitioner, who is also part of the breech birth team. After unsuccessful/declined second attempt, confirms choice of mode of birth. Wider team made aware of planned VBB.
38 weeks Returns to antenatal clinic and sees another consultant or registrar. Majority of UK hospitals reluctant to support planned VBB. Advised to have CS. In some cases, a managed breech delivery in lithotomy is offered. Woman and her birth partner prepare for the up-coming birth.
39 weeks + After a return visit to antenatal clinic to attempt to negotiate support for an active VBB, meeting yet another consultant, and lots of research on the internet, woman seeks out external sources of support for VBB. Advocate (Supervisor of Midwives, doula, independent midwife) attempts to liaise with hospital staff, who ask, “Why do they all leave it to the last minute? There’s no time to put a plan in place now! Returns to breech clinic at 41 weeks to revisit choice of mode of birth, taking factors such as fetal growth and length of pregnancy into consideration. Talks to the same or another experienced member of the breech team.

Questions for reflection:

  • Consider your current work setting. If a woman tells you she would like to consider a VBB but is not receiving support to plan one, what can you do?
  • Who needs to be involved in her plan?
  • Who will support you to support her? To what extent are you comfortable being involved?
  • How can you build a local breech team, who can be ready to meet this need when it arises?
  • Consider working with your team to develop an informational resource for women, like this leaflet from King’s College Hospital.

Please share your positive experiences and good examples of breech teams in the comments.

Shawn

References:

Beuckens, A., Rijnders, M., Verburgt-Doeleman, G., Rijninks-van Driel, G., Thorpe, J., Hutton, E., 2016. An observational study of the success and complications of 2546 external cephalic versions in low-risk pregnant women performed by trained midwives. BJOG An Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 123, 415–423. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13234

Catling, C., Petrovska, K., Watts, N.P., Bisits, A., Homer, C.S.E., 2015. Care during the decision-making phase for women who want a vaginal breech birth: Experiences from the field. Midwifery. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.12.008

Coyle ME  Peat B, S.C.A., 2012. Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation (Review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003928.pub3

Walker, S., Perilakalathil, P., Moore, J., Gibbs, C.L., Reavell, K., Crozier, K., 2015. Standards for midwife practitioners of external cephalic version: A Delphi study. Midwifery 31, e79–e86. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.01.004