Background: Post-term pregnancy, a pregnancy exceeding 294 days or 42 completed weeks, is associated with increased perinatal morbidity and mortality and is considered a high-risk condition which requires specialist surveillance and induction of labour. However, there is uncertainty on the policy concerning the timing of induction for post-term pregnancy or impending post-term pregnancy, leading to practice variation between caregivers. Previous studies on induction at or beyond 41 weeks versus expectant management showed different results on perinatal outcome though conclusions in meta-analyses show a preference for induction at 41 weeks. However, interpretation of the results is hampered by the limited sample size of most trials and the heterogeneity in design. Most control groups had a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour that went far beyond 42 weeks, which does not reflect usual care in The Netherlands where induction of labour at 42 weeks is the regular policy. Thus leaving the question unanswered if induction at 41 weeks results in better perinatal outcomes than expectant management until 42 weeks. Methods/design: In this study we compare a policy of labour induction at 41 + 0/+1 weeks with a policy of expectant management until 42 weeks in obstetrical low risk women without contra-indications for expectant management until 42 weeks and a singleton pregnancy in cephalic position. We will perform a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. Our primary outcome will be a composite outcome of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes will be maternal outcomes as mode of delivery (operative vaginal delivery and Caesarean section), need for analgesia and postpartum haemorrhage (≥1000 ml). Maternal preferences, satisfaction, wellbeing, pain and anxiety will be assessed alongside the trial. Discussion: his study will provide evidence for the management of pregnant women reaching a gestational age of 41 weeks.
MULTIFILE
Objectives: Promoting unstructured outside play is a promising vehicle to increase children’s physical activity (PA). This study investigates if factors of the social environment moderate the relationship between the perceived physical environment and outside play. Study design: 1875 parents from the KOALA Birth Cohort Study reported on their child’s outside play around age five years, and 1516 parents around age seven years. Linear mixed model analyses were performed to evaluate (moderating) relationships among factors of the social environment (parenting influences and social capital), the perceived physical environment, and outside play at age five and seven. Season was entered as a random factor in these analyses. Results: Accessibility of PA facilities, positive parental attitude towards PA and social capital were associated with more outside play, while parental concern and restriction of screen time were related with less outside play. We found two significant interactions; both involving parent perceived responsibility towards child PA participation. Conclusion: Although we found a limited number of interactions, this study demonstrated that the impact of the perceived physical environment may differ across levels of parent responsibility.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Social inequalities in bodyweight start early in life and track into adulthood. Dietary patterns are an important determinant of weight development in children, towards both overweight and underweight. Therefore, we aimed to examine weight development between age 5 and 10 years by ethnicity, SES and thereafter by BMI category at age 5, to explore its association with dietary patterns at age 5.METHODS: Participants were 1765 children from the Amsterdam Born Children and their Development (ABCD) cohort that had valid data on BMI at age 5 and 10 and diet at age 5. Linear mixed model analysis was used to examine weight development between age 5 and 10 years and to assess if four previously identified dietary patterns at age 5 (snacking, full-fat, meat and healthy) were associated with weight development. Analyses were adjusted for relevant confounders, stratified by ethnicity and SES and thereafter stratified per BMI category at age 5.RESULTS: Overall, weight decreased in Dutch and high SES children and increased in non-Dutch and low/middle SES children. Across the range of bodyweight categories at age 5, we observed a conversion to normal weight, which was stronger in Dutch and high SES children but less pronounced in non-Dutch and low/middle SES children. Overall, the observed associations between weight development and dietary patterns were mixed with some unexpected findings: a healthy dietary pattern was positively associated with weight development in most groups, regardless of ethnicity and SES (e.g. Dutch B 0.084, 95% CI 0.038;0.130 and high SES B 0.096, 95% CI 0.047;0.143) whereas the full-fat pattern was negatively associated with weight development (e.g. Dutch B -0.069, 95% CI -0.114;-0.024 and high SES B -0.072, 95% CI -0.119;-0.026).CONCLUSIONS: We observed differential weight development per ethnic and SES group. Our results indicate that each ethnic and SES group follows its own path of weight development. Associations between dietary patterns and weight development showed some unexpected findings; follow-up research is needed to understand the association between dietary patterns and weight development.
Vulnerable pregnant women are an important and complex theme in daily practice of birth care professionals. Vulnerability is an important risk factor for maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Providing care for these women is often complex. First, because it is not always easy to identify vulnerability. Secondly, vulnerable women more often cancel their appointments with midwives and finally, many professionals are involved while they do not always know each other. Even though professionals are aware of the risks of vulnerability for future mothers and their (unborn) children and the complexity of care for these women, there is no international definition for ‘vulnerable pregnancies’. Therefore, we start this project with defining a mutual definition of vulnerability during pregnancy. In current projects of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (RUAS) we define a vulnerable pregnant woman as: a pregnant woman facing psychopathology, psychosocial problems, and/or substance abuse combined with lack of individual and/or social resources (low socioeconomic status, low educational level, limited social network). In the Netherlands, care for vulnerable pregnant women is fragmented and therefore it is unclear for birth care professionals which interventions are available and effective. Therefore, Dutch midwives are convinced that exchanging knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices throughout Europe could enhance their knowledge and provide midwives (SMB partners in this project) with tools to improve care for vulnerable pregnant women. The aim of this project is to exchange knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices in several European countries, in order to improve knowledge and skills of midwives. As a result, guidelines will be developed in order to exchange selected best practices which enable midwives to implement this knowledge in their own context. This contributes to improving care for vulnerable pregnant women throughout Europe.
