Support in pregnancy

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies

BACKGROUND

Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programmes offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programmes, collectively referred to in this review as additional social support, may include emotional support, which gives a person a feeling of being loved and cared for, tangible/instrumental support, in the form of direct assistance/home visits, and informational support, through the provision of advice, guidance and counselling. The programmes may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or a combination of lay and professional workers. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and updated in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the effects of programmes offering additional social support (emotional, instrumental/tangible and informational) compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed to be at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or weigh less than 2500 g, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay person).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 5 February 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of additional social support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional social support as some form of emotional support (e.g. caring, empathy, trust), tangible/instrumental support (e.g. transportation to clinic appointments, home visits complemented with phone calls, help with household responsibilities) or informational support (advice and counselling about nutrition, rest, stress management, use of alcohol/recreational drugs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes a total of 25 studies, with outcome data for 11,246 mothers and babies enrolled in 21 studies. We assessed the overall risk of bias of included studies to be low or unclear, mainly because of limited reporting or uncertainty in how randomisation was generated or concealed (which led us to downgrade the quality of most outcomes to moderate), and the impracticability of blinding participants.When compared with routine care, programmes offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women may slightly reduce the number of babies born with a birthweight less than 2500 g from 127 per 1000 to 120 per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04; 16 studies, n = 11,770; moderate-quality evidence), and the number of babies born with a gestational age less than 37 weeks at birth from 128 per 1000 to 117 per 1000 (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, 14 studies, n = 12,282; moderate-quality evidence), though the confidence intervals for the pooled effect for both of these outcomes just crossed the line of no effect, suggesting any effect is not large. There may be little or no difference between interventions for stillbirth/neonatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.41; 15 studies, n = 12,091; low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes of moderate quality suggested that there is probably a reduction in caesarean section (from 215 per 1000 to 194 per 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; 15 studies, n = 9550), a reduction in the number of antenatal hospital admissions per participant (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; 4 studies; n = 787), and a reduction in the mean number of hospitalisation episodes (mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.04; 1 study, n = 1525) in the social support group, compared to the controls.Postnatal depression and women's satisfaction were reported in different ways in the studies that considered these outcomes and so we could not include data in a meta-analysis. In one study postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group in women who screened positively on the Edinbugh Postnatal Depression Scale at eight to 12 weeks postnatally (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; 1 study, n = 1008; moderate-quality evidence). In another study, again postnatal depression appeared to be slightly lower in the support group and this was a self-report measure assessed at six weeks postnatally (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; 1 study, n = 458; low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women in one study reported that their prenatal care was very helpful in the supported group (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.30; 1 study, n = 223; moderate-quality evidence), although in another study results were similar. Another study assessed satisfaction with prenatal care as being "not good" in 51 of 945 in the additional support group, compared with 45 of 942 in the usual care group.No studies considered long-term morbidity for the infant. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistency of effect when the support was provided by a healthcare professional or a trained lay worker.The descriptions of the additional social support were generally consistent across all studies and included emotional support, tangible support such as home visits, and informational support.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programmes that offer additional social support during pregnancy are unlikely to have a large impact on the proportion of low birthweight babies or birth before 37 weeks' gestation and no impact on stillbirth or neonatal death, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth and antenatal hospital admission.

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies

BACKGROUND

Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programs offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programs may include advice and counseling (about nutrition, rest, stress management, alcohol, and recreational drug use), tangible assistance (e.g., transportation to clinic appointments, household help), and emotional support. The programs may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, specially trained lay workers, or combination of lay and professional workers.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess effects of programs offering additional social support compared with routine care, for pregnant women believed at high risk for giving birth to babies that are either preterm or weigh less than 2500 gm, or both, at birth. Secondary objectives were to determine whether effectiveness of support was mediated by timing of onset (early versus later in pregnancy) or type of provider (healthcare professional or lay woman).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of additional support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. We defined additional support as some form of emotional support (e.g., counseling, reassurance, sympathetic listening) and information or advice or both, either in home visits or during clinic appointments, and could include tangible assistance (e.g., transportation to clinic appointments, assistance with care of other children at home).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors evaluated methodological quality. We performed double data entry.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials (12,264 women). Programs offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women were not associated with improvements in any perinatal outcomes, but there was a reduction in the likelihood of antenatal hospital admission (three trials; n = 737; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92) and caesarean birth (nine trials; n = 4522; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programs which offer additional support during pregnancy are unlikely to prevent the pregnancy from resulting in a low birthweight or preterm baby, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of antenatal hospital admission and caesarean birth.

Aiming to increase birth weight: a randomised trial of pre-pregnancy information, advice and counselling in inner-urban Melbourne

Background

In the 1980s there was substantial interest in early pregnancy and pre-pregnancy interventions to increase birth weight and reduce preterm birth. We developed an inter-pregnancy intervention, implemented in a randomised controlled trial, to be provided by midwives at home soon after women's first birth.

Methods

MCH nurses invited women to take part during their home visit to new mothers. Women's contact details, with their permission, were passed to the study midwife. She had a randomisation schedule to which women's names were added before she met the women or their partners. All women recruited had a home visit from the study midwife with a discussion of their first pregnancy, labour and birth and the postpartum experience. Women in the intervention arm received in addition a pre-pregnancy intervention with discussion of social, health or lifestyle problems, preparation and timing for pregnancy, family history, rubella immunisation, referrals for health problems, and a reminder card. The primary outcome was defined as a birth weight difference in the second birth of 100 g (one-sided) in favour of the intervention. Additional data collected were gestational age, perinatal deaths and birth defects. Analyses used EPI-INFO and STATA.

Results

Intervention and comparison groups were comparable on socioeconomic factors, prior reproductive history and first birth outcomes. Infant birth weight in the second birth was lower (-97.4 g,)) among infants in the intervention arm. There were no significant differences between intervention and comparison arms in the proportion of women having a preterm birth, an infant with low birthweight, or an infant with a birth weight <10^th percentile. There were more adverse outcomes in the intervention arm: ten births <32 weeks), compared with one in standard care, and more infants with a birth weight <2000 g, 16 compared with two in standard care

Conclusion

As the primary outcome was envisaged to be either improved birth weight or no effect, the study was not designed to identify the alternative outcome with confidence. Despite widespread support for pre-pregnancy interventions to improve maternal and perinatal health, this first randomised controlled trial of a multi-component intervention provided at home, did not have a beneficial outcome.

Support during pregnancy for women at increased risk of low birthweight babies

BACKGROUND

Studies consistently show a relationship between social disadvantage and low birthweight. Many countries have programs offering special assistance to women thought to be at risk for giving birth to a low birthweight infant. These programs may include advice and counselling (about nutrition, rest, stress management, alcohol and recreational drug use), tangible assistance (eg transportation to clinic appointments, help with household responsibilities), and emotional support. The programs may be delivered by multidisciplinary teams of health professionals, by specially trained lay workers, or by a combination of lay and professional workers.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of programs offering additional social support for pregnant women who are believed to be at risk for giving birth to preterm or low birthweight babies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (30 January 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials of additional support during at-risk pregnancy by either a professional (social worker, midwife, or nurse) or specially trained lay person, compared to routine care. Additional support was defined as some form of emotional support (eg counselling, reassurance, sympathetic listening) and information/advice, either in home visits or during clinic appointments, and could include tangible assistance (eg transportation to clinic appointments, assistance with the care of other children at home).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Double data entry was performed. Study authors were contacted to request additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials involving 13,651 women were included. The trials were generally of good to excellent quality, although 3 used an allocation method likely to introduce bias. Programs offering additional social support for at-risk pregnant women were not associated with improvements in any perinatal outcomes, but there was a reduction in the likelihood of caesarean birth and an increased likelihood of elective termination of pregnancy. Some improvements in immediate maternal psychosocial outcomes were found in individual trials.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women need the support of caring family members, friends, and health professionals. While programs which offer additional support during pregnancy are unlikely to prevent the pregnancy from resulting in a low birthweight or preterm baby, they may be helpful in reducing the likelihood of caesarean birth.

[Threat of premature labor, stress, psychosocial support and psychotherapy: a review of the literature]

From the hypothesis that preterm labour is a physical expression of a difficulty to have a cheerful pregnancy, we wanted to assess from a literature review:--the link between stress, anxiety, and preterm birth for one part--and the medical advantage of psychosocial or psychological support among women having a high risk of preterm birth for another. According to the available publications, stress, psychological disturbances, and anxiety can increase the risk of preterm birth. However, psychosocial support is not associated with an improvement of the perinatal outcome. On the other hand, psychological support for women having a preterm labour, with or without hospitalisation, seems an interesting medical approach to reduce the preterm birth rate.

Women's lived experiences of pregnancy: a tapestry of joy and suffering

The phenomenological study of the lived experiences of pregnancy described in this article is part of a Finnish caring science research program. Eighty interviews with 40 women combined with nonparticipant observation were analyzed according to Colaizzi. Pregnant women wishing for a perfect child want to promote the health of their unborn baby, no longer take health for granted, and try to change their health behavior. Their altered mode of being involves body changes, variations in mood, and worries. The striving to achieve family communion is seen in the evolving significance of the baby; in dreams, hopes, and plans; and in changing relationships. In relation to Eriksson's ontological health model, the joy and suffering in pregnancy are based on being there for another. Taking seriously the women's experiences and the hidden questions that reveal suffering in both lay and professional caring might prevent the serious postpartum misery of motherhood.