Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33875554›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2021

Evaluation of a blended care programme for caregivers and working pregnant women to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes: an intervention study.

Monique van Beukering, Adeline Velu, Lydia Henrike Nicole Schonewille, Ruben Duijnhoven, Ben Willem Mol, Teus Brand, Monique Frings-Dresen, Marjolein Kok

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A narrative review on factors associated with job interruption during pregnancy.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2023
    Review
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Monique van BeukeringObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands m.d.vanbeukering@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4080-5589
Adeline VeluObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lydia Henrike Nicole SchonewilleObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ruben DuijnhovenObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ben Willem MolObstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Teus BrandPublic and Occupational Health/Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Monique Frings-DresenPublic and Occupational Health/Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjolein KokObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNetherlands Center for Occupational Diseases · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWork-related activities can be a risk factor for pregnancy complications such as preterm birth. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a blended care programme, Pregnancy and Work, that provides pregnant workers and their obstetrical caregivers with advice on work adjustment.

methodsWomen less than 20 weeks of gestation, in paid employment or self-employed, in the care of four participating hospitals and their referring midwifery practices in the Netherlands received either the blended care programme (n=119), consisting of a training for professionals and a mobile health application, or care as usual (n=122) in a controlled intervention study with a follow-up in intervention and control populations. All participants completed three questionnaires concerning health and working conditions at 16, 24 and 32 weeks of pregnancy. Primary outcome was the percentage of women who received advice from their obstetrical caregiver about work adjustment. Secondary outcomes were work status, realised work adjustment and working conditions. Groups were compared using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

resultsA total of 188 (78%) completed all three questionnaires. In the blended care group, women received more advice from obstetrical caregivers to adjust their work than in the control group, 41 (39%) vs 21 (18%) (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 2.2, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.4), but less from their employer 8 (8%) vs 31 (28%) (aRR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.61). There were no significant differences in realised work adjustments. At 24 weeks, 30% of the pregnant women in both groups continued to work in hazardous workplaces.

conclusionAmong working pregnant women, the blended care intervention increases advice on work adjustment given by midwives and obstetricians, but does not lead to more work adjustments.

Indexed as

WorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansMidwiferyMobile ApplicationsNetherlandsObstetricsOccupational ExposurePregnancyPrenatal CareSick LeaveSurveys and QuestionnairesWomen, Workingoccupational healthpregnancy outcomepreventive medicineworkload

Identifiers

PMID33875554
PMCPMC8526877
OpenAlexW3152808498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.