8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of earlier antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care: cluster randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care as a way of facilitating earlier uptake of screening.

          Design Partial factorial cluster randomised controlled trial.

          Setting 25 UK general practices from deprived inner city areas.

          Participants Anonymised data on all pregnant women attending participating practices during a six month period before randomisation and a seven month period after randomisation. This included 1708 eligible women.

          Intervention Practices were randomised to three groups for seven months: parallel testing in general practice (tests for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia offered to both parents when pregnancy was first reported); sequential testing in general practice (tests offered to mothers when pregnancy was first reported, and subsequently to the partners of women who were found to be carriers); and midwife care (tests offered to mothers at first consultation with a midwife).

          Main outcome measures The primary outcome (available for all women) was the proportion of eligible women screened before 10 weeks’ (70 days’) gestation. Secondary outcomes were an offer of screening to women before 10 weeks’ gestation, gestational age at testing, mean interval from first visit to the general practice visit to screening, and women’s knowledge of the carrier status of their baby’s father before 77 days’ (11 weeks’) gestation. The study was designed to detect a 20% absolute increase in screening uptake. Cluster level analyses were adjusted for age group, parity, ethnic group, primary care organisation, and number of general practitioners per practice.

          Results Data were analysed for 1708 eligible women. In the midwife care arm, 2% (9/441) of women were screened before 10 weeks’ gestation compared with 24% (161/677) in the GP parallel testing arm and 28% (167/590) in the GP sequential testing arm. The estimated adjusted difference between the midwife care and GP parallel testing arms was 16.5% (95% confidence interval 7.1% to 25.8%; P=0.002) and between the midwife care and GP sequential testing arms was 27.8% (14.8% to 40.7%; P<0.001). By 26 weeks’ gestation the proportion of women screened across the three trial arms was similar (81%). The proportion of women who knew the carrier status of the baby’s father by 11 weeks’ gestation was 0% (0/441) in the midwife care arm, 2% (13/677) in the GP parallel testing arm (P=0.003), and 1% (3/590) in the GP sequential testing arm (P=0.374).

          Conclusion Offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia as part of consultations for pregnancy confirmation in primary care increases the proportion of women screened before 10 weeks’ gestation. Even with intervention, however, only a minority of women were screened before 10 weeks. Additional interventions should be considered to achieve testing early in pregnancy for most women wanting such tests so that couples with affected pregnancies have less time pressure to choose options, which may include termination of the pregnancy.

          Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00677850.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Unequal cluster sizes for trials in English and Welsh general practice: implications for sample size calculations.

          Cluster randomized trials are often used in primary care settings. In the U.K., general practices are usually the unit of allocation. The effect of variability in practice list size on sample size calculations is demonstrated using the General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales, 1997. Summary statistics and tables are given to help design such trials assuming that a fixed proportion of patients are to be recruited from each cluster. Three different weightings of the cluster means are compared: uniform, cluster size and minimum variance weights. Minimum variance weights are shown to be superior to uniform, particularly when clusters are small, and to cluster size weights, particularly when clusters are large. Where there are large numbers of participants per cluster and cluster size weights are used, the power actually falls as more patients are recruited to large clusters. When minimum variance weights are used the increase in the design effect due to variation in list size is small, regardless of the size of intracluster correlation coefficient or the number of participants per cluster, provided there is no loss of randomized units. When the expected number of participants per practice is low a greater loss in power comes from practices which fail to recruit patients. A method to estimate the likely effect and allow for it is presented. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Maximising recruitment and retention of general practices in clinical trials: a case study.

            There is limited evidence regarding the factors that facilitate recruitment and retention of general practices in clinical trials. It is therefore pertinent to consider the factors that facilitate research in primary care. To formulate hypotheses about effective ways of recruiting and retaining practices to clinical trials, based on a case study. Case study of practice recruitment and retention to a trial of delivering antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening. Two UK primary care trusts with 123 practices, with a high incidence of sickle cell and thalassaemia, and high levels of social deprivation. Practices were invited to take part in the trial using a research information sheet for practices. Invitations were sent to all practice managers, GPs, practice nurses, and nurse practitioners. Expenses of approximately pound 3000 per practice were available. Practices and the research team signed research activity agreements, detailing a payment schedule based on deliverables. Semi-structured interviews were completed with 20 GPs who participated in the trial. Outcome measures were the number of practices recruited to, and completing, the trial. Four practices did not agree to randomisation and were excluded. Of 119 eligible practices, 29 expressed an interest in participation. Two practices withdrew from the trial and 27 participated (two hosted pilot studies and 25 completed the trial), giving a retention rate of 93% (27/29). The 27 participating practices did not differ from non-participating practices in list size, number of GPs, social deprivation, or minority ethnic group composition of the practice population. Three factors appeared important in recruiting practices: research topic, invitation method, and interest in research. Three factors appeared important in retaining practices: good communication, easy data-collection methods, and payment upon meeting pre-agreed targets. The effectiveness of these factors at facilitating recruitment and retention requires assessment in experimental studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Informed choice in genetic screening for thalassaemia during pregnancy: audit from a national confidential inquiry.

              National audit of informed choice in antenatal screening for thalassaemia. Audit from the UK Confidential Enquiry into Counselling for Genetic Disorders. Thalassaemia module of the UK Confidential Enquiry into Counselling for Genetic Disorders. 138 of 156 couples who had had a pregnancy affected by a major beta thalassaemia from 1990 to 1994. How and when genetic risk was identified for each couple, and whether and when prenatal diagnosis was offered. Risk was detected by screening before or during the first pregnancy in 49% (68/138) of couples and by diagnosis of an affected child in 28% (38/138) of couples. Prenatal diagnosis was offered in 69% (274/400) of pregnancies, ranging from 94% (122/130) for British Cypriots to 54% (80/149) for British Pakistanis and from 90% in the south east of England to 39% in the West Midlands. Uptake of prenatal diagnosis was 80% (216/274), ranging from 98% (117/120) among British Cypriots in either the first or second trimester to 73% (35/48) among British Pakistanis in the first trimester and 39% (11/28) in the second trimester. A demonstrable service failure occurred in 28% (110/400) of pregnancies, including 110 of 126 where prenatal diagnosis was not offered and 48 of 93 that ended with an affected liveborn infant. Although antenatal screening and counselling for haemoglobin disorders are standard practices in the United Kingdom, they are delivered inadequately and inequitably. An explicit national policy is needed, aiming to make prenatal diagnosis in the first trimester available to all couples and including ongoing national audit.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: trial manager
                Role: professor of public health
                Role: professor of health economics
                Role: professor of health economics
                Role: professor of medical sociology
                Role: professor of ethnicity and health
                Role: professor in health economics
                Role: general practitioner
                Role: general practitioner
                Role: general practitioner and consultant
                Role: consultant in fetal maternal medicine
                Role: emeritus professor of nursing
                Role: research associate
                Role: antenatal screening midwife
                Role: professor of health psychology
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2010
                2010
                05 October 2010
                : 341
                : c5132
                Affiliations
                [1 ]King’s College London, Psychology Department (at Guy’s), London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
                [2 ]King’s College London, Department of Public Health Sciences
                [3 ]School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Canada
                [4 ]Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [5 ]School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Seebohm Rowntree Building, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, United Kingdom
                [7 ]School of Population Health and Clinical Practice, University of Adelaide, Australia
                [8 ]Mawbey Group Practice, Mawbey Brough Health Centre, London
                [9 ]10 Archibald Road, London
                [10 ]Brooklands Medical Practice, Knutsford, Cheshire, United Kingdom
                [11 ]Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham
                [12 ]Thames Valley University, Acton, London
                [13 ]Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London
                [14 ]Antenatal Clinic, University College London Hospital, London
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: T M Marteau theresa.marteau@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                dore705442
                10.1136/bmj.c5132
                2950261
                20923841
                22d5daa5-4bf9-4e50-9467-8f086100c384
                © Dormandy et al 2010

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 2 August 2010
                Categories
                Research
                Clinical Trials (Epidemiology)
                General Practice / Family Medicine
                Pregnancy
                Reproductive Medicine
                Child Health
                Infant Health
                Screening (Epidemiology)
                Ethics of Reproduction
                Screening (Public Health)

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article