Conectar
Large-for-gestational-age (LGA) and macrosomic births pose significant maternal and neonatal health risks, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to care are often limited. Despite well-established associations between LGA, macrosomia, and various risk factors, the relative contributions of these factors remain underexplored in LMICs. This study aims to identify risks factors for LGA and macrosomia in LMICs, with an emphasis on modifiable ones, and quantify their population attributable fractions (PAFs).
A systematic review will be conducted across the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus and ProQuest Central and regional databases (Africa Index Medicus, Index Medicus for South Asia and Latin America and Caribbean literature of health sciences). Eligible studies will include observational studies, reviews and interventional research conducted between 2000 and 2025 that report on prevalence or association of risk factors for large-for-gestational-age (LGA) and/or macrosomia births in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Data extraction will encompass study characteristics, prevalence/incidence estimates, risk factor distributions and measures of association. Quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies. While Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used for randomised controlled trials and a Measurement Tool to Assess Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model, which accounts for population heterogeneity, will synthesise risk estimates for factors examined in three or more studies from LMICs, up-to-date meta-analysis including all relevant studies identified through our search. Population attributable fractions for individual and combined risk factors will be calculated.
This systematic review will use only previously published information. Ethical approval is therefore not required. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and the findings will be presented at international conferences to engage relevant stakeholders including policymakers and public health organisations in LMICs with the aim of informing the development of targeted interventions to reduce the burden of LGA and macrosomia births in the region.
Infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with haematological cancers, but the duration of elevated risk in long-term survivors remains uncertain. Although previous attempts to summarise the existing literature on this topic would have been hampered by the sheer volume of studies on cancer and all-cause infections, emerging artificial intelligence tools now offer the ability to streamline the screening process, allowing for broader and more comprehensive reviews.
This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Eligible studies will include original observational data reporting long-term (≥1 year follow-up from diagnosis) infection-related outcomes in haematological cancer survivors compared with a general or cancer-free population. Screening will be supported by ASReview, an artificial intelligence-based tool for abstract prioritisation. An internal validation step will be conducted by comparing artificial intelligence-assisted screening results with manual review performed by two independent researchers on a subset of abstracts. The primary outcomes of infection incidence and infection mortality will be summarised by type of infection, type of haematological cancer and time since cancer diagnosis. Information on anti-cancer treatments received will also be described. Data synthesis will be mostly narrative due to the broad scope of the review, though meta-analyses will be performed in cases where studies are sufficiently homogenous. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Ethical approval is not applicable to this study. The results of the review will be disseminated to clinical audiences and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD420251047091.
To explore the perspectives and experiences of maternity care providers regarding obstetric violence across low-, middle-, and high-income countries.
An integrative review of the literature.
A systematic literature search in CINAHL, Medline (via Ovid), SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from 2014 to 2024. Further papers were identified through a review of the reference lists of identified studies and through email alerts from searched databases. Articles were appraised using the applicable Joanna Briggs Institute qualitative or cross-sectional critical appraisal tool.
Title and abstract screen were undertaken on 2748 records. Fifty-four studies using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods designs were included. Maternity providers across all socio-economic levels described witnessing, and/or involvement in both respectful care and incidents of obstetric violence. The most common forms of obstetric violence were verbal and physical abuse, coercion, unconsented and unnecessary interventions, and violations of privacy and autonomy. Women who were socially marginalised, impoverished, and illiterate were vulnerable to obstetric violence. Differences were noted between low- and high-income countries, with detention of women for non-payment, privacy violations due to building design and lack of space, mistreatment due to HIV status, and women who were considered non-compliant being more vulnerable to obstetric violence in low-and low-middle-income countries. Obstetric violence was justified and normalised in the name of saving the baby, with less focus on the psychological health of the mother.
Our findings demonstrate that obstetric violence is a gender-based violence enabled through patriarchal structures and power imbalances. Maternity providers are witnessing or enacting obstetric violence across low-, middle- and high-income countries, with significant impacts on women and maternity care providers alike. This review highlights opportunities for further research and action to develop health and legal frameworks to prevent instances of obstetric violence and improve outcomes for women and maternity care providers.
A woman-centred approach underpinned by respectful maternity care has benefits for pregnant and birthing women. Obstetric violence, including verbal and physical abuse, coercion, and overmedicalisation, is prevalent in maternity services globally. This integrative review explored the perspectives and experiences of maternity care providers regarding obstetric violence across low-, middle-, and high-income countries. This review highlights the similarities and differences of witnessed, enacted, and perceived obstetric violence from the experience of maternity care providers. This review identifies the covert and overt nature of obstetric violence across low-, middle- and high-income countries. Gaining insight into provider perspectives across low-, middle-, and high-income countries may inform policy and practice reforms to eliminate obstetric violence and advance the provision of respectful maternity care.
This integrative review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
A significant number of women die from pregnancy and childbirth complications globally, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Receiving at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits is important in reducing maternal and perinatal deaths. However, few studies have investigated the factors linked to the completion of ≥4 ANC visits in Nepal.
To investigate factors associated with attending ≥4 ANC visits in Sarlahi district of southern Nepal.
A secondary analysis was conducted on data from the Nepal Oil Massage Study (NOMS), a cluster-randomised, community-based longitudinal pregnancy trial including 34 village development committees. We investigated the associations between attendance of ≥4 ANC visits and socioeconomic, demographic, morbidity and pregnancy history factors using logistic regression; generalised estimating equations were used to account for multiple pregnancies per woman. All pregnancies resulting in a live birth (LB) (n=31 867) were included.
Attendance of ≥4 ANC visits.
31.4% of those pregnancies received 4+ ANC visits. Significant positive associations included socioeconomic factors such as participation in non-farming occupations for women (OR=1.52, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.93), higher education (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.66 to 1.93) and wealth quintile (OR=1.44, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.59), nutritional status such as non-short stature (OR=1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27), obstetric history such as adequate interpregnancy interval (OR=1.31, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.45) and prior pregnancy but no LB (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.92), symptoms such as vaginal bleeding (OR=1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.65) and awareness of the government’s conditional cash transfer ANC programme (OR=2.26, 95% CI 2.01 to 2.54). Conversely, identifying as the Shudra caste (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.67), maternal age below 18 or above 35 (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.88; OR=0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96), preterm birth (OR=0.41, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.49), parity ≥1 (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.72) and the presence of hypertension during pregnancy (OR=0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.90) were associated with decreased likelihood of attending ≥4 ANC visits.
These findings demonstrate the importance of socioeconomic factors, including education, caste, wealth and occupation in completion of ≥4 ANC visits. In addition, biological factors including birth spacing, pregnancy complications and nutrition are important. The association with awareness of the government’s conditional cash transfer programme is a motivation for a full evaluation of whether expanding that programme might improve prenatal care.
The clinicaltrial.gov trial registration number for NOMS was NCT01177111.
Hospital falls and associated injuries are a global issue associated with harm and significant costs to individuals and society, especially for older adults. Hospital standards specify the minimum level of care required to optimise patient safety, quality and outcomes. Standards are often used during hospital accreditation. This investigation analysed the content and quality of hospital falls standards across the globe.
Hospital standards were located by searching online databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE), ChatGPT, the grey literature via internet search engines, and websites of accreditation agencies, government agencies, and other relevant organisations. We searched for standards from the 60 largest countries by population plus the 60 countries with the highest gross domestic product (n = 82 after accounting for duplicates). For inclusion, hospital standards had to mention ‘fall/s’. Data were analysed using a deductive framework synthesis and content analysis to identify emergent themes.
Forty-one standards used by at least 72 countries were identified from our search. Sixteen were excluded from detailed analysis because they did not mention falls and 3 could not be retrieved. A total of 22 standards were included in the final detailed analysis. Included standards showed wide variations in content and quality. Seven were assessed as high quality, 12 medium quality, and 3 were deemed to be of low quality. Some lacked details on hospital falls screening, assessment, prevention, and management. Consumer engagement in development, implementation, or evaluation was not mentioned in all standards. Procedures for falls data collection and reporting were seldom documented. Hospital standards infrequently referred readers to contemporary research or clinical practice guidelines.
There are variations in the quality and content of standards on hospital falls. International collaboration is recommended to increase the consistency and validity of hospital falls standards across nations, in order to optimise healthcare outcomes.
The findings of this global analysis of hospital falls standards have the potential to impact falls rates and fall-related injuries in hospital patients by providing data to inform the content, evidence base and use of hospital standards to optimise the safety and quality of care delivery. The findings inform the review, design and implementation of hospital accreditation procedures to improve patient outcomes, patient experiences, and service quality.
To determine the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) and fostamatinib (FOS) compared with standard of care (SOC) in patients requiring hospital admission for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.
Adaptive multiarm, multistage, randomised, open-label trial (three arm, two stage).
Five hospitals in England between October 2020 and September 2022.
Hospitalised patients (≥18 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia defined by a modified WHO COVID-19 severity grade of 3 or 4.
Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive RUX (10 mg two times per day for 7 days then 5 mg two times per day for 7 days), FOS (150 mg two times per day for 7 days then 100 mg two times per day for 7 days) or SOC.
Primary outcome was development of severe COVID-19 pneumonia (modified WHO severity grade≥5) within 14 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, venous thromboembolism, duration of hospital stay, readmissions, inflammatory markers and serious adverse events (SAEs).
At stage 1, 181 patients were randomised, with 4 assessed as ineligible post randomisation. FOS was stopped early for futility with 16 participants (27.6%, n=58) developing severe COVID-19 pneumonia compared with 15 (25.0%, n=60) in the SOC arm (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) compared with SOC: 1.12; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.58; p=0.608). RUX progressed to stage 2 but the trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment. At the final analysis, 10 participants (16.1%, n=62) developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the RUX arm compared with 15 (24.6%, n=61) in the SOC arm (aOR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.57; p=0.161). Four (7.4%) participants in the FOS arm, none in the RUX arm and three (5.5%) in the SOC arm died within 14 days of randomisation. Infections were the most frequently reported SAE and were numerically higher in the FOS (10, 17.2%) and RUX (10, 16.1%) arms compared with SOC (7, 11.5%). Two unexpected serious adverse reactions occurred in the RUX arm only.
We found no evidence that FOS was superior to SOC for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients requiring hospital admission. Due to early stopping, the trial was underpowered to establish RUX’s effect in this population. Further study is needed.
NCT04581954; EUDRA-CT:
Mobile health (mHealth) technologies have become increasingly popular for monitoring mental health symptoms and lifestyle behaviours, and are largely reported to be feasible and acceptable to users. However, to date, the efficacy of such technologies to improve perinatal mental health outcomes has been mixed. Within the perinatal context, much of this work has been done in the context of postpartum depression, stemming from electronic health records as well as cohort studies. There is, however, a dearth of studies focusing on depression in pregnancy, and machine learning-based clinical decision support systems remain underexplored. The HappyMums application has been developed to meet this need, and its use across Europe will be tested in this study.
A total of 1000 pregnant people currently suffering from, or at risk of, antenatal depression will be recruited across six countries. All participants will be between 13 and 28 weeks’ gestation and will be given access to the new purposefully developed HappyMums mobile application, to use from enrolment until 2 months postpartum. The application leverages passively collected data from smartphone sensors relating to physical activity and behaviour, as well as requiring active engagement from the user to complete mental health questionnaires and ‘game-like’ activities. Digital data types will be combined with traditional mental health measurement methods, such as standardised questionnaires and interviews, to develop novel predictive models capable of identifying mental health trajectories in women at risk of developing antenatal depression and to test the app’s utility for use as personalised risk prediction and depression identification tool. The primary outcome of this study is to determine what proportion of users will continue to use the mobile application and engage with its tasks and activities at least weekly, while secondary exploratory outcomes include assessing usability of the app and testing the predictive ability of a novel machine learning-based model. These outcomes will, for the first time, be assessed by integrating active as well as passive data.
Ethical approval has been granted by local research ethics committees in each recruiting centre. At King’s College London (leading the clinical study), the study was reviewed by the East of England—Essex Research Ethics Committee and granted favourable opinion (REC reference 24/EE/0129). All other sites collecting participant data have the study approved for local delivery. Findings relating to the primary and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in open access, peer-reviewed journals, as well as presentations at conferences as symposia or posters. Findings will be made available to a non-specialist audience through open access digital mental health magazines and promotion on social media.
by Ryan D. Parsons, Sarah Bauermeister, Julian Turner, Natalie Coles, Simon Thompson, Emma Squires, Tracey Riseborough, Joshua Bauermeister, Abbie Simpkin, Naomi French, Shankly Cragg, Hazel Lockhart-Jones, Olly Robertson, Abhaya Adlakha, Ian Thompson, John Gallacher
Adolescent mental health and wellbeing are of growing concern globally with increased incidence of mental health disorders in young people. BrainWaves provides a framework for relevant and diverse research programmes into adolescent mental health and wellbeing that can translate into practice and policy. The research programme is a partnership with schools centred on establishing a large (n > 50,000) cohort and trials platform. Reported here is the BrainWaves cohort pilot study. This was designed as proof-of-concept for our recruitment and data capture pipelines, and for cost-modelling. A network of research schools was recruited and a computer-driven questionnaire administered. The eligible population was 16 + year olds who were attending the research schools. Of 41 research schools, 36 (88%) participated over one three-week and one four-week data collection period. From an eligible population of 33,531 young people, 16,010 (48%) attended the study lesson and created an account. Of the 16,010 (100%) who created an account, 15,444 (96%) consented to participate, 9,321 (60%) consented to linkage of research data with educational records, and 6,069 (39%) consented to linkage of research with school/college attendance data. Participants were aged 16–19 years, 59% female, and 76% White. Higher levels of anxiety and depression were found in females than males. Higher levels of media-based social networking were found in females, whereas higher levels of media-based gaming were found in males. Females were more likely to report insufficient sleep whilst males were more likely to report high levels of exercise. This study confirmed an ability to recruit at pace and scale. Whilst the response-rate does not indicate a representative sample, the demographics describe an inclusive and diverse sample. Data collected confirmed findings from previous studies indicating that the electronic data collection methods did not materially bias the findings. Initial cost-modelling suggests these data were collected for around £20 per participant.Glucosamine is a commonly used ‘over the counter’ dietary supplement. Previous research has identified an association between glucosamine use and several positive health outcomes. However, a plausible biological mechanism for these associations has not yet been identified, meaning the causality of these relationships remains unclear. A protective effect of glucosamine on the vascular endothelium has been suggested as one such possible mechanism. Albuminuria is an early marker of endothelial dysfunction within the kidney and is associated with progression of kidney disease and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. In order to provide insights into the potential biological mechanisms underlying a protective association of glucosamine use with health outcomes, we evaluated evidence for an association between glucosamine use and albuminuria in UK Biobank (N=436 200).
Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression were performed to evaluate evidence for an association between self-reported glucosamine use and albuminuria (measured as urine albumin creatinine ratio (uACR) categories). As a secondary analysis, we performed Mendelian randomisation (MR) to demonstrate the difficulties in inferring causality in this relationship using currently available data, using summary genetic data from UK Biobank and CDKGen (N=67 452).
We found that people who used glucosamine were more likely to be in a lower uACR group (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.83, px10–16). This association was robust to sensitivity analyses and was maintained after adjustment for age, sex and measures of obesity. In our MR analysis, we found little evidence for an association of genetically proxied glucosamine use on albuminuria (change in log uACR (mg/g) per SD change in genetic liability=1.11, 95% CI –3.01 to 5.23, p=0.60).
We found that detectable albuminuria was common in UK Biobank participants and we are the first to show that use of glucosamine supplements was associated with lower levels. Though this fits with a plausible biological role of the vascular endothelium in a potential protective effect of glucosamine use on many health outcomes, whether this relationship is causal or confounded remains unclear. We further discuss the inherent difficulties in using genetic instruments to proxy supplement use in MR analyses and highlight the need for a genome-wide association study of measured circulating glucosamine levels.
To explore the perceptions and experiences of students raising concerns during pre-registration health and/or social care training in England.
Systematic review.
MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO and Education Research Complete were systematically searched for studies published between September 2015 and August 2024. Grey literature searches were conducted using Google Scholar and ETHOS British Library. Reference lists from included studies were hand searched.
Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for the conduct of systematic review informed conduct and the convergent integrated approach. Mixed methods appraisal tool was used for quality appraisal.
Eleven studies were included. Synthesis of findings generated three themes: (1) conflicting needs of self and others, (2) navigating the professional workspace and, (3) ‘choice to voice’.
Speaking up and raising concerns as a pre-registration student is a complex, multi-faceted and non-linear social phenomenon. Experiences and perceptions are impacted by the novice student position alongside individual, interpersonal and organisational factors. Open cultures within teams and organisations, leadership, support and feedback may enable students overcome barriers to raising concerns.
Raising concerns may reduce avoidable harm. Pre-registration students offer a ‘fresh pair of eyes’; however, they face barriers related to their student position. Synthesis of speaking-up experiences and perceptions of students in English settings can inform the design of learning environments which equip pre-registration students with the knowledge and skills required to cultivate safety behaviours. These skills contribute positively to safety culture and support learning and improvement in complex systems such as health and social care.
The review followed PRISMA reporting guidelines.
The conceptualisation of this project was informed by engagement events with higher education staff, students and Freedom to Speak Up Guardians.
FreshRSS 