ArticleBMC public health2025
Systematic description of the development of a complex health intervention of information and support in a new pregnancy after pregnancy loss.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this paper, we present a systematic description of the development method of a complex health intervention (PREGAFTERPL) for couples with prior pregnancy loss (PL) to provide information and support in a new pregnancy using co-production and prototyping.
methodsA three-stage method described by Hawkins et al. and informed by O'Cathain et al. was tested to develop the PREGAFTERPL intervention for couples over a 24 month period. We used a combination of the partnership and theory and evidence based approaches of O'Cathain's nine categories of intervention development approaches. The stages included: (1) Evidence review, needs assessment and stakeholder consultation, (2) Co-production with stakeholders (health care professionals, researchers and couples with prior pregnancy loss) via consultations and focus groups, and (3) Prototyping using focus group and online survey. The three stage co-production and prototyping process was iterative and cumulative with refinements occurring at each stage before progressing to the next stage.
resultsUsing the three-stage method we co-produced and prototype-tested the intervention content and delivery methods for the PREGAFTERPL intervention. In stage 1 we identified the needs of pregnant women and their partners and potential content of the intervention to include information, coping strategies and tools and resources. In stage 2, multiple refinements of the content and delivery resulted from an action research cycle with input from stakeholders including the decision to divide the tool into one for women and another for partners. Initial prototyping in stage 3 showed that the tools were acceptable, useful and relevant and it was suitable to proceed with full-scale feasibility testing, implementation and evaluation.
conclusionsThis framework presented in the PREGAFTERPL case study provides a practical example on how to co-produce and prototype a complex healthcare intervention in collaboration with key stakeholders including health care professionals and couples with prior pregnancy loss in order to meet an unmet need for information and support in a new pregnancy after PL. Through such case study, we hope that future researchers will be inspired to include co-production in their own intervention development projects by seeing that it is valuable and can be feasible and done with limited resources.
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.