Éadaoin M Butler1,2, Abigail J Reynolds2,3, José G B Derraik1,2,4,5, Brooke C Wilson2, Wayne S Cutfield6,7, Celia P Grigg2. 1. A Better Start - National Science Challenge, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland, 92019, New Zealand. 3. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. 4. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 6. A Better Start - National Science Challenge, Auckland, New Zealand. w.cutfield@auckland.ac.nz. 7. Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Private Bag, Auckland, 92019, New Zealand. w.cutfield@auckland.ac.nz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaginal seeding is the administration of maternal vaginal bacteria to babies following birth by caesarean section (CS), intended to mimic the microbial exposure that occurs during vaginal birth. Appropriate development of the infant gut microbiome assists early immune development and might help reduce the risk of certain health conditions later in life, such as obesity and asthma. We aimed to explore the views of pregnant women on this practice. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study on the views of pregnant women in New Zealand (NZ) on vaginal seeding. Phase one: brief semi-structured interviews with pregnant women participating in a clinical trial of vaginal seeding (n = 15); and phase two: online questionnaire of pregnant women throughout NZ (not in the trial) (n = 264). Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to interview and open-ended questionnaire data. Closed-ended questionnaire responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Six themes were produced through analysis of the open-ended data: "seeding replicates a natural process", "microbiome is in the media", "seeding may have potential benefits", "seeking validation by a maternity caregiver", "seeding could help reduce CS guilt", and "the unknowns of seeding". The idea that vaginal seeding replicates a natural process was suggested by some as an explanation to help overcome any initial negative perceptions of it. Many considered vaginal seeding to have potential benefit for the gut microbiome, while comparatively fewer considered it to be potentially beneficial for specific conditions such as obesity. Just under 30% of questionnaire respondents (n = 78; 29.5%) had prior knowledge of vaginal seeding, while most (n = 133; 82.6%) had an initially positive or neutral reaction to it. Few respondents changed their initial views on the practice after reading provided evidence-based information (n = 60; 22.7%), but of those who did, most became more positive (n = 51; 86.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Given its apparent acceptability, and if shown to be safe and effective for the prevention of early childhood obesity, vaginal seeding could be a non-stigmatising approach to prevention of this condition among children born by CS. Our findings also highlight the importance of lead maternity carers in NZ remaining current in their knowledge of vaginal seeding research.
BACKGROUND: Vaginal seeding is the administration of maternal vaginal bacteria to babies following birth by caesarean section (CS), intended to mimic the microbial exposure that occurs during vaginal birth. Appropriate development of the infant gut microbiome assists early immune development and might help reduce the risk of certain health conditions later in life, such as obesity and asthma. We aimed to explore the views of pregnant women on this practice. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study on the views of pregnant women in New Zealand (NZ) on vaginal seeding. Phase one: brief semi-structured interviews with pregnant women participating in a clinical trial of vaginal seeding (n = 15); and phase two: online questionnaire of pregnant women throughout NZ (not in the trial) (n = 264). Reflexive thematic analysis was applied to interview and open-ended questionnaire data. Closed-ended questionnaire responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Six themes were produced through analysis of the open-ended data: "seeding replicates a natural process", "microbiome is in the media", "seeding may have potential benefits", "seeking validation by a maternity caregiver", "seeding could help reduce CS guilt", and "the unknowns of seeding". The idea that vaginal seeding replicates a natural process was suggested by some as an explanation to help overcome any initial negative perceptions of it. Many considered vaginal seeding to have potential benefit for the gut microbiome, while comparatively fewer considered it to be potentially beneficial for specific conditions such as obesity. Just under 30% of questionnaire respondents (n = 78; 29.5%) had prior knowledge of vaginal seeding, while most (n = 133; 82.6%) had an initially positive or neutral reaction to it. Few respondents changed their initial views on the practice after reading provided evidence-based information (n = 60; 22.7%), but of those who did, most became more positive (n = 51; 86.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Given its apparent acceptability, and if shown to be safe and effective for the prevention of early childhood obesity, vaginal seeding could be a non-stigmatising approach to prevention of this condition among children born by CS. Our findings also highlight the importance of lead maternity carers in NZ remaining current in their knowledge of vaginal seeding research.
Authors: C R Cardwell; L C Stene; G Joner; O Cinek; J Svensson; M J Goldacre; R C Parslow; P Pozzilli; G Brigis; D Stoyanov; B Urbonaite; S Sipetić; E Schober; C Ionescu-Tirgoviste; G Devoti; C E de Beaufort; K Buschard; C C Patterson Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2008-02-22 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Maria G Dominguez-Bello; Kassandra M De Jesus-Laboy; Nan Shen; Laura M Cox; Amnon Amir; Antonio Gonzalez; Nicholas A Bokulich; Se Jin Song; Marina Hoashi; Juana I Rivera-Vinas; Keimari Mendez; Rob Knight; Jose C Clemente Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ana Pilar Betrán; Jianfeng Ye; Anne-Beth Moller; Jun Zhang; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Maria Regina Torloni Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Éadaoin M Butler; Valentina Chiavaroli; José G B Derraik; Celia P Grigg; Brooke C Wilson; Nicholas Walker; Justin M O'Sullivan; Wayne S Cutfield Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 1.817