Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29703254›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Evaluation of a novel vital sign device to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings: a mixed method feasibility study for the CRADLE-3 trial.

Nicola Vousden, Elodie Lawley, Hannah L Nathan, Paul T Seed, Adrian Brown, Tafadzwa Muchengwa, Umesh Charantimath, Mrutyunjaya Bellad, Muchabayiwa Francis Gidiri, Shivaprasad Goudar and 4 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

14 authors.

Nicola VousdenDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK. Nicola.vousden@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5216-8268
Elodie LawleyDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Hannah L NathanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Paul T SeedDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Adrian BrownMaternity Worldwide Community Base, 113 Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XG, UK.
Tafadzwa MuchengwaMorgenster Mission Hospital, Masvingo, Zimbabwe.
Umesh CharantimathWomen's and Children's Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka, 590010, India.
Mrutyunjaya BelladWomen's and Children's Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka, 590010, India.
Muchabayiwa Francis GidiriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Shivaprasad GoudarWomen's and Children's Health Research Unit, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka, 590010, India.
Lucy C ChappellDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Jane SandallDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Andrew H ShennanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
CRADLE Trial Collaborative Group

Funding

Department of Health RP-2014-05-019Medical Research Council MR/N006240/1Medical Research Council (GB) joint funding with Department of International Health and Department of Biotechnology India (Newton Fund) MR/N006240/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe CRADLE-3 trial is a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial aiming to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity by implementing a novel vital sign device (CRADLE Vital Sign Alert) and training package into routine maternity care in 10 low-income sites. The MRC Guidance on complex interventions proposes that interventions and implementation strategies be shaped by early phase piloting and development work. We present the findings of a three-month mixed-methodology feasibility study for this trial, describe how this was informed by the MRC guidance and the study design was refined.

methodsThe fidelity, dose, feasibility and acceptability of implementation and training materials were assessed in three representative non-trial sites (Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India) using multiple-choice questionnaires, evaluation of clinical management (action log), healthcare provider (HCP) semi-structured interviews and focus groups 4-10 weeks after implementation. Simultaneously, the 10 sites included in the main trial (eight countries) collected primary outcome data to inform the power calculation and randomisation allocation and assess the feasibility of data collection.

resultsThe package was implemented with high fidelity (85% of HCP trained, n = 204). The questionnaires indicated a good understanding of device use with 75% of participants scoring > 75% (n = 97; 90% of those distributed). Action logs were inconsistently completed but indicated that the majority of HCP responded appropriately to abnormal results. From 18 HCP interviews and two focus groups it was widely reported that the intervention improved capacity to make clinical decisions, escalate care and make appropriate referrals. Nine of the ten main trial sites achieved ethical approval for pilot data collection. Intensive care was an inconsistent marker of morbidity and stroke an infrequent outcome and therefore they were removed from the main trial composite outcome. Tools and methods of data collection were optimized and event rates used to inform randomisation.

conclusionsThis feasibility study demonstrates that the components of the intervention were acceptable, methods of implementing were successful and the main trial design would be feasible. Qualitative work identified key moderators that informed the main trial process evaluation. Changes to the training package, implementation strategy, study design and processes were identified to refine the implementation in the main trial.

trial registrationISRCTN41244132 ; Registered 24/11/2015.

Indexed as

Health Plan ImplementationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiagnostic Techniques, Obstetrical and GynecologicalEthiopiaFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHealth ResourcesHumansIndiaMaternal DeathMonitoring, PhysiologicPregnancyQualitative ResearchComplex interventionFeasibilityImplementationLow resourceMaternal mortalityPilot

Identifiers

PMID29703254
PMCPMC5924508

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.