Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Evaluation of community-level interventions to increase early initiation of antenatal care in pregnancy: protocol for the Community REACH study, a cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations

Authors: Mary Sawtell, Lorna Sweeney, Meg Wiggins, Cathryn Salisbury, Sandra Eldridge, Lauren Greenberg, Rachael Hunter, Inderjeet Kaur, Christine McCourt, Bethan Hatherall, Gail Findlay, Joanne Morris, Sandra Reading, Adrian Renton, Ruth Adekoya, Belinda Green, Belinda Harvey, Sarah Latham, Kanta Patel, Logan Vanlessen, Angela Harden

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The provision of high-quality maternity services is a priority for reducing inequalities in health outcomes for mothers and infants. Best practice includes women having their initial antenatal appointment within the first trimester of pregnancy in order to provide screening and support for healthy lifestyles, well-being and self-care in pregnancy. Previous research has identified inequalities in access to antenatal care, yet there is little evidence on interventions to improve early initiation of antenatal care. The Community REACH trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of engaging communities in the co-production and delivery of an intervention that addresses this issue.

Methods/design

The study design is a matched cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The unit of randomisation is electoral ward. The intervention will be delivered in 10 wards; 10 comparator wards will have normal practice. The primary outcome is the proportion of pregnant women attending their antenatal booking appointment by the 12th completed week of pregnancy. This and a number of secondary outcomes will be assessed for cohorts of women (n = approximately 1450 per arm) who give birth 2–7 and 8–13 months after intervention delivery completion in the included wards, using routinely collected maternity data. Eight hospitals commissioned to provide maternity services in six NHS trusts in north and east London and Essex have been recruited to the study. These trusts will provide anonymised routine data for randomisation and outcomes analysis. The process evaluation will examine intervention implementation, acceptability, reach and possible causal pathways. The economic evaluation will use a cost-consequences analysis and decision model to evaluate the intervention. Targeted community engagement in the research process was a priority.

Discussion

Community REACH aims to increase early initiation of antenatal care using an intervention that is co-produced and delivered by local communities. This pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, with integrated process and economic evaluation, aims to rigorously assess the effectiveness of this public health intervention, which is particularly complex due to the required combination of standardisation with local flexibility. It will also answer questions about scalability and generalisability.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry: registration number 63066975. Registered on 18 August 2015.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
An electoral ward in England is a subdivision of a local authority area, typically used for electoral purposes.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Marmot M, Allen J, Goldblatt P, et al. Fair society, healthy lives: strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010. London: Marmot Review Team; 2010. Marmot M, Allen J, Goldblatt P, et al. Fair society, healthy lives: strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010. London: Marmot Review Team; 2010.
2.
go back to reference Oakley L, Gray R, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Hollowell J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to increase the early initiation of antenatal care in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2009. Oakley L, Gray R, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Hollowell J. A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to increase the early initiation of antenatal care in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2009.
3.
go back to reference Partridge S, Balayla J, Holcroft CA, Abenheim HA. Inadequate prenatal care utilization and risks of infant mortality and poor birth outcome: a retrospective analysis of 28,729,765 U.S. deliveries over 8 years. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:787–94.CrossRefPubMed Partridge S, Balayla J, Holcroft CA, Abenheim HA. Inadequate prenatal care utilization and risks of infant mortality and poor birth outcome: a retrospective analysis of 28,729,765 U.S. deliveries over 8 years. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:787–94.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Antenatal Care for Uncomplicated Pregnancies: NICE guidelines [CG62]. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Antenatal Care for Uncomplicated Pregnancies: NICE guidelines [CG62]. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
6.
go back to reference Dhange P, Breeze ACG, Kean LH. Routine antenatal management at the booking clinic. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2013;23(2):45–52.CrossRef Dhange P, Breeze ACG, Kean LH. Routine antenatal management at the booking clinic. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2013;23(2):45–52.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Antenatal Care: Quality Standard [QS22]. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2012. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Antenatal Care: Quality Standard [QS22]. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2012.
8.
10.
go back to reference Lindquist A, Kurinczuk JJ, Redshaw M, Knight M. Experiences, utilisation and outcomes of maternity care in England among women from different socio-economic groups: findings from the 2010 National Maternity Survey. BJOG. 2015;122(12):1610–7.CrossRefPubMed Lindquist A, Kurinczuk JJ, Redshaw M, Knight M. Experiences, utilisation and outcomes of maternity care in England among women from different socio-economic groups: findings from the 2010 National Maternity Survey. BJOG. 2015;122(12):1610–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Downe S, Finlayson K, Walsh D, Lavender T. Weighing up and balancing out’: a meta-synthesis of barriers to antenatal care for marginalised women in high-income countries. BJOG. 2009;116:518–29.CrossRefPubMed Downe S, Finlayson K, Walsh D, Lavender T. Weighing up and balancing out’: a meta-synthesis of barriers to antenatal care for marginalised women in high-income countries. BJOG. 2009;116:518–29.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hatherall B, Morris J, Jamal F, Sweeney L, Wiggins M, Kaur I, et al. Timing of the initiation of antenatal care: an exploratory qualitative study of women and service providers in East London. Midwifery. 2016;36:1–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hatherall B, Morris J, Jamal F, Sweeney L, Wiggins M, Kaur I, et al. Timing of the initiation of antenatal care: an exploratory qualitative study of women and service providers in East London. Midwifery. 2016;36:1–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Hollowell J, Oakley L, Vigurs C, Barnett-Page E, Kavanagh J, Oliver S. Increasing the early initiation of antenatal care by black and minority ethnic women in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and mixed methods synthesis of women’s views and the literature on intervention effectiveness. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2012. Hollowell J, Oakley L, Vigurs C, Barnett-Page E, Kavanagh J, Oliver S. Increasing the early initiation of antenatal care by black and minority ethnic women in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and mixed methods synthesis of women’s views and the literature on intervention effectiveness. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2012.
15.
go back to reference Popay J, Whitehead M, Carr-Hill R, Dibben C, Dixon P, Halliday E, Nazroo J, Peart E, Povall S, Stafford M, Turner J, Walthery P. The impact on health inequalities of approaches to community engagement in the New Deal for Communities regeneration initiative: a mixed-methods evaluation. Public Health Res. 2015;3(12):1-146. Popay J, Whitehead M, Carr-Hill R, Dibben C, Dixon P, Halliday E, Nazroo J, Peart E, Povall S, Stafford M, Turner J, Walthery P. The impact on health inequalities of approaches to community engagement in the New Deal for Communities regeneration initiative: a mixed-methods evaluation. Public Health Res. 2015;3(12):1-146.
16.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Community Engagement: NICE Guidelines [PH9]. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Community Engagement: NICE Guidelines [PH9]. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
17.
go back to reference Public Health England. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing: Full report. London: Crown Copyright; 2015. Public Health England. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing: Full report. London: Crown Copyright; 2015.
18.
go back to reference Popay J, Attree P, Hornby D, Milton B, Whitehead M, French B, et al. Community engagement in initiatives addressing the wider social determinants of health. A rapid review of evidence on impact, experience and process. Lancaster: University of Lancaster; 2007. Popay J, Attree P, Hornby D, Milton B, Whitehead M, French B, et al. Community engagement in initiatives addressing the wider social determinants of health. A rapid review of evidence on impact, experience and process. Lancaster: University of Lancaster; 2007.
19.
go back to reference Brunton G, O’Mara-Eaves A, Thomas J. The ‘active ingredients’ for successful community engagement with disadvantaged expectant and new mothers: a qualitative comparative analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(12):2847–60.CrossRefPubMed Brunton G, O’Mara-Eaves A, Thomas J. The ‘active ingredients’ for successful community engagement with disadvantaged expectant and new mothers: a qualitative comparative analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(12):2847–60.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Phillips G, Bottomley C, Schmidt E, Tobi P, Lais S, Yu G, et al. Well London Phase 1: results among adults of a cluster randomised trial of a community engagement approach to improving health behaviours and mental well-being in deprived inner city neighbourhoods. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-202505. Accessed 30 Jan 17. Phillips G, Bottomley C, Schmidt E, Tobi P, Lais S, Yu G, et al. Well London Phase 1: results among adults of a cluster randomised trial of a community engagement approach to improving health behaviours and mental well-being in deprived inner city neighbourhoods. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014; https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​jech-2013-202505. Accessed 30 Jan 17.
21.
go back to reference Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin: Parents’ Country of Birth, England and Wales: 2015. London: Office for National Statistics; 2016. Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin: Parents’ Country of Birth, England and Wales: 2015. London: Office for National Statistics; 2016.
23.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary. Geneva: WHO; 1998. World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary. Geneva: WHO; 1998.
24.
go back to reference Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. London: MRC Population Health Science Research. Network. 2014; Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. London: MRC Population Health Science Research. Network. 2014;
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of community-level interventions to increase early initiation of antenatal care in pregnancy: protocol for the Community REACH study, a cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluations
Authors
Mary Sawtell
Lorna Sweeney
Meg Wiggins
Cathryn Salisbury
Sandra Eldridge
Lauren Greenberg
Rachael Hunter
Inderjeet Kaur
Christine McCourt
Bethan Hatherall
Gail Findlay
Joanne Morris
Sandra Reading
Adrian Renton
Ruth Adekoya
Belinda Green
Belinda Harvey
Sarah Latham
Kanta Patel
Logan Vanlessen
Angela Harden
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2526-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue