The acceptability of cervical electrical impedance spectroscopy within a multi-modal preterm birth screening package: a mixed methods study.
Acceptability
Cervix
Electrical impedance spectroscopy
Maternal experience
Mixed methods
Preterm birth
Preterm labour
Screening
Triangulation
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Dec 2022
22 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
09
05
2022
accepted:
09
11
2022
entrez:
22
12
2022
pubmed:
23
12
2022
medline:
27
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reducing the rate of preterm birth is a cornerstone of global efforts to address child mortality, however existing screening tests offer imperfect prediction. Cervical electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a novel technique to quantify the ripening changes which precede labour. Mid-trimester EIS measurements have been shown to accurately predict preterm birth in asymptomatic women. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the acceptability of cervical EIS to low and high-risk women as part of a package of screening tests performed during a larger prospective trial. In this parallel convergent mixed methods study, 40 women completed questionnaires before and after screening tests (EIS, cervical length measurement and fetal fibronectin quantification). Quantitative outcomes were anxiety levels before and after screening (Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), pain (Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire) and ratings of EIS device appearance and test acceptability (visual analogue scales). Twenty-one women (11 high-risk, 10 low-risk) also attended a semi-structured qualitative interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed. A convergence coding matrix was constructed to enable triangulation of quantitative and qualitative results. High risk women demonstrated a significant reduction in anxiety following screening (mean STAI-6 score 34.5 vs. 29.0, p = 0.002). A similar trend was observed among low-risk participants. Ratings of pain, EIS device appearance and procedural acceptability did not differ between groups. Mean pain ratings were low (visual analogue scale 0.97 and 1.01), comparing favourably to published evaluations of conventional screening tests. Qualitative analysis provided insight into both the physical consequences and emotional experiences of screening. Additional determinants of the screening experience included device design, pre-existing perspectives on intimate examination, attitudes to knowledge in pregnancy and interaction with clinical staff. Finally, a range of practical considerations regarding wider use of EIS were identified, with valuable complementary detail regarding acceptability for use in antenatal care. Cervical EIS is well tolerated and acceptable to both low and high-risk women when performed as part of a multi-modal screening package. These results provide useful insights to inform the design of future study and screening protocols.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reducing the rate of preterm birth is a cornerstone of global efforts to address child mortality, however existing screening tests offer imperfect prediction. Cervical electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a novel technique to quantify the ripening changes which precede labour. Mid-trimester EIS measurements have been shown to accurately predict preterm birth in asymptomatic women. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the acceptability of cervical EIS to low and high-risk women as part of a package of screening tests performed during a larger prospective trial.
METHODS
METHODS
In this parallel convergent mixed methods study, 40 women completed questionnaires before and after screening tests (EIS, cervical length measurement and fetal fibronectin quantification). Quantitative outcomes were anxiety levels before and after screening (Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), pain (Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire) and ratings of EIS device appearance and test acceptability (visual analogue scales). Twenty-one women (11 high-risk, 10 low-risk) also attended a semi-structured qualitative interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then thematic analysis was performed. A convergence coding matrix was constructed to enable triangulation of quantitative and qualitative results.
RESULTS
RESULTS
High risk women demonstrated a significant reduction in anxiety following screening (mean STAI-6 score 34.5 vs. 29.0, p = 0.002). A similar trend was observed among low-risk participants. Ratings of pain, EIS device appearance and procedural acceptability did not differ between groups. Mean pain ratings were low (visual analogue scale 0.97 and 1.01), comparing favourably to published evaluations of conventional screening tests. Qualitative analysis provided insight into both the physical consequences and emotional experiences of screening. Additional determinants of the screening experience included device design, pre-existing perspectives on intimate examination, attitudes to knowledge in pregnancy and interaction with clinical staff. Finally, a range of practical considerations regarding wider use of EIS were identified, with valuable complementary detail regarding acceptability for use in antenatal care.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Cervical EIS is well tolerated and acceptable to both low and high-risk women when performed as part of a multi-modal screening package. These results provide useful insights to inform the design of future study and screening protocols.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36550429
doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-05202-z
pii: 10.1186/s12884-022-05202-z
pmc: PMC9783720
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
959Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Apr;12(1):51-7
pubmed: 806683
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug 1;138(2):320-323
pubmed: 34293768
Midwifery. 2018 Sep;64:85-92
pubmed: 29990628
BJOG. 2013 Mar;120(4):400-10; discussion 410-1
pubmed: 23289897
JAMA. 2017 Mar 14;317(10):1047-1056
pubmed: 28291893
Midwifery. 2021 Jan;92:102864
pubmed: 33137547
Value Health. 2009 Jul-Aug;12(5):821-7
pubmed: 19508667
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Aug;95(8):948-55
pubmed: 27100022
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Jan 15;16:5
pubmed: 26772181
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2010 Aug;1(3):79-84
pubmed: 21122602
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S467-72
pubmed: 22588767
BJOG. 2005 Mar;112(3):293-8
pubmed: 15713142
Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Jul;20(4):287-90
pubmed: 12098173
Proc R Soc Med. 1969 Oct;62(10):989-93
pubmed: 4899510
BJOG. 2006 Dec;113 Suppl 3:17-42
pubmed: 17206962
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Aug;58(2):293-302
pubmed: 32798253
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52
pubmed: 22588748
Br J Clin Psychol. 1992 Sep;31(3):301-6
pubmed: 1393159
Lancet. 2017 Dec 17;388(10063):3027-3035
pubmed: 27839855
Pain. 1987 Aug;30(2):191-197
pubmed: 3670870
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Nov;22(5):508-14
pubmed: 14618665
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Apr;17(4):335-40
pubmed: 11339192
Int J Nanomedicine. 2014 Sep 23;9:4521-32
pubmed: 25285005
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019 Oct;21:95-101
pubmed: 31395241
Dermatol Clin. 2017 Oct;35(4):489-493
pubmed: 28886804
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jun 04;14:190
pubmed: 24894630
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014 May;99(3):F181-8
pubmed: 24604108
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Nov;12(5):304-11
pubmed: 9819867
Lancet. 2000 Mar 11;355(9207):892-5
pubmed: 10752706
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Sep;35(3):101-7
pubmed: 25123986
Qual Health Res. 2006 Mar;16(3):377-94
pubmed: 16449687
Sex Reprod Healthc. 2021 Sep;29:100611
pubmed: 33882392
J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Dec;33(12):2159-63
pubmed: 25425373
BMJ. 2010 Sep 17;341:c4587
pubmed: 20851841
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jan;256:523-524
pubmed: 33248801