Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26936901›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Lay support for pregnant women with social risk: a randomised controlled trial.

Sara Kenyon, Kate Jolly, Karla Hemming, Lucy Hope, Jackie Blissett, Sophie-Anna Dann, Richard Lilford, Christine MacArthur

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Breastfeeding interventions for preventing postpartum depression.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara KenyonInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Kate JollyInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Karla HemmingInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Lucy HopeUniversity of Worcester.
Jackie BlissettSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sophie-Anna DannInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Richard LilfordDepartment of Population Evidence & Technologies, University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.
Christine MacArthurInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity of Worcester · GB

Funding

Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe sought evidence of effectiveness of lay support to improve maternal and child outcomes in disadvantaged families.

designProspective, pragmatic, individually randomised controlled trial.

setting3 Maternity Trusts in West Midlands, UK.

participantsFollowing routine midwife systematic assessment of social risk factors, 1324 nulliparous women were assigned, using telephone randomisation, to standard maternity care, or addition of referral to a Pregnancy Outreach Worker (POW) service. Those under 16 years and teenagers recruited to the Family Nurse Partnership trial were excluded.

interventionsPOWs were trained to provide individual support and case management for the women including home visiting from randomisation to 6 weeks after birth. Standard maternity care (control) included provision for referring women with social risk factors to specialist midwifery services, available to both arms.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were antenatal visits attended and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) 8-12 weeks postpartum. Prespecified, powered, subgroup comparison was among women with 2 or more social risks. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal birth outcomes; maternal self-efficacy, and mother-to-infant bonding at 8-12 weeks; child development assessment at 6 weeks, breastfeeding at 6 weeks, and immunisation uptake at 4 months, all collected from routine child health systems.

resultsAntenatal attendances were high in the standard care control and did not increase further with addition of the POW intervention (10.1 vs 10.1 (mean difference; MD) -0.00, 95% CI (95% CI -0.37 to 0.37)). In the powered subgroup of women with 2 or more social risk factors, mean EPDS (MD -0.79 (95% CI -1.56 to -0.02) was significantly better, although for all women recruited, no significant differences were seen (MD -0.59 (95% CI -1.24 to 0.06). Mother-to-infant bonding was significantly better in the intervention group for all women (MD -0.30 (95% CI -0.61 to -0.00) p=0.05), and there were no differences in other secondary outcomes.

conclusionsThis trial demonstrates differences in depressive symptomatology with addition of the POW service in the powered subgroup of women with 2 or more social risk factors. Addition to existing evidence indicates benefit from lay interventions in preventing postnatal depression. This finding is important for women and their families given the known effect of maternal depression on longer term childhood outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35027323; Results.

Indexed as

Social SupportAdolescentAdultBreast FeedingDepression, PostpartumFemaleHouse CallsHumansMidwiferyParityPostnatal CarePregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareProspective StudiesPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesOBSTETRICSpregnancyPUBLIC HEALTHsocial/lay support

Identifiers

PMID26936901
PMCPMC4785315
OpenAlexW2290584844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.