Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36927579›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023

Group antenatal care: findings from a pilot randomised controlled trial of REACH Pregnancy Circles.

Mary Sawtell, Meg Wiggins, Octavia Wiseman, Anita Mehay, Christine McCourt, Lorna Sweeney, Bethan Hatherall, Tahania Ahmed, Lauren Greenberg, Rachael Hunter and 3 more

Full text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improving Diversity in Recruitment: Lessons Learned During the REACH Pregnancy Circles Pilot Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

13 authors.

Mary SawtellInstitute of Education, University College London, London, UK. m.sawtell@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4774-5566
Meg WigginsInstitute of Education, University College London, London, UK.
Octavia WisemanSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.
Anita MehayDepartment of Health and Human Development, University of East London, London, UK.
Christine McCourtSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.
Lorna SweeneyDepartment of Health and Human Development, University of East London, London, UK.
Bethan HatherallDepartment of Health and Human Development, University of East London, London, UK.
Tahania AhmedWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London, UK.
Lauren GreenbergWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London, UK.
Rachael HunterDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Thomas HamborgWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London, UK.
Sandra EldridgeWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London, UK.
Angela HardenDepartment of Health and Human Development, University of East London, London, UK.

Funding

Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-1211-20015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntenatal care has the potential to impact positively on maternal and child outcomes, but traditional models of care in the UK have been shown to have limitations and particularly for those from deprived populations. Group antenatal care is an alternative model to traditional individual care. It combines conventional aspects of antenatal assessment with group discussion and support. Delivery of group antenatal care has been shown to be successful in various countries; there is now a need for a formal trial in the UK.

methodAn individual randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a model of group care (Pregnancy Circles) delivered in NHS settings serving populations with high levels of deprivation and diversity was conducted in an inner London NHS trust. This was an external pilot study for a potential fully powered RCT with integral economic evaluation. The pilot aimed to explore the feasibility of methods for the full trial. Inclusion criteria included pregnant with a due date in a certain range, 16 + years and living within specified geographic areas. Data were analysed for completeness and usability in a full trial; no hypothesis testing for between-group differences in outcome measures was undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria corresponding to five feasibility measures were set. Additional aims were to assess the utility of our proposed outcome measures and different data collection routes. A process evaluation utilising interviews and observations was conducted.

resultsSeventy-four participants were randomised, two more than the a priori target. Three Pregnancy Circles of eight sessions each were run. Interviews were undertaken with ten pregnant participants, seven midwives and four other stakeholders; two observations of intervention sessions were conducted. Progression criteria were met at sufficient levels for all five measures: available recruitment numbers, recruitment rate, intervention uptake and retention and questionnaire completion rates. Outcome measure assessments showed feasibility and sufficient completion rates; the development of an economic evaluation composite measure of a 'positive healthy birth' was initiated.

conclusionOur pilot findings indicate that a full RCT would be feasible to conduct with a few adjustments related to recruitment processes, language support, accessibility of intervention premises and outcome assessment.

trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN66925258. Retrospectively registered, 03 April 2017.

Indexed as

FeasibilityGroup antenatal careLimited English proficiencyPre-specified progression criteriaProcess evaluationSocial deprivation

Identifiers

PMID36927579
PMCPMC10018939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read77
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.