Mahnaz Bahri Khomami1, Helena J Teede1,2, Joanne Enticott1, Sharleen O'Reilly3, Cate Bailey4, Cheryce L Harrison1,2. 1. Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Diabetes and Endocrine Unit, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia. 3. UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland. 4. Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: Lifestyle interventions in pregnancy optimize gestational weight gain and improve pregnancy outcomes, with implementation recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Yet, implementation research taking these efficacy trials into pragmatic translation remains limited. Objective: To evaluate success factors for implementing pregnancy lifestyle interventions into antenatal care settings in a meta-analysis, using the penetration, implementation, participation, and effectiveness (PIPE) impact metric. Data Sources: Data from a previous systematic review that searched across 9 databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database, were obtained, in 2 stages, up to May 6, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials reporting gestational weight gain in singleton pregnancies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The association of penetration, implementation, and participation with effectiveness of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing gestational weight gain was estimated using random-effects meta-analyses. The Cochrane risk of bias tool, version 1.0, was used to assess risk of bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: Penetration (reach), implementation (fidelity), participation, and effectiveness of randomized clinical trials of lifestyle interventions in pregnancy. Results: Ninety-nine studies with 34 546 participants were included. Only 14 studies reported penetration of target populations. Overall, 38 studies (38.4%) had moderate fidelity, 25 (25.2%) had high fidelity, and 36 (36.4%) had unclear fidelity. Participation was reported in 84 studies (84.8%). Lifestyle interventions were associated with reducing gestational weight gain by 1.15 kg (95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91 kg). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that, despite the large body of evidence on efficacy of lifestyle interventions during pregnancy in optimizing gestational weight gain, little guidance is available to inform implementation of this evidence into practice. There is a need to better elucidate implementation outcomes in trial design alongside pragmatic implementation research to improve the health of women who are pregnant and the next generation.
Importance: Lifestyle interventions in pregnancy optimize gestational weight gain and improve pregnancy outcomes, with implementation recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Yet, implementation research taking these efficacy trials into pragmatic translation remains limited. Objective: To evaluate success factors for implementing pregnancy lifestyle interventions into antenatal care settings in a meta-analysis, using the penetration, implementation, participation, and effectiveness (PIPE) impact metric. Data Sources: Data from a previous systematic review that searched across 9 databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database, were obtained, in 2 stages, up to May 6, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials reporting gestational weight gain in singleton pregnancies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The association of penetration, implementation, and participation with effectiveness of antenatal lifestyle interventions in optimizing gestational weight gain was estimated using random-effects meta-analyses. The Cochrane risk of bias tool, version 1.0, was used to assess risk of bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: Penetration (reach), implementation (fidelity), participation, and effectiveness of randomized clinical trials of lifestyle interventions in pregnancy. Results: Ninety-nine studies with 34 546 participants were included. Only 14 studies reported penetration of target populations. Overall, 38 studies (38.4%) had moderate fidelity, 25 (25.2%) had high fidelity, and 36 (36.4%) had unclear fidelity. Participation was reported in 84 studies (84.8%). Lifestyle interventions were associated with reducing gestational weight gain by 1.15 kg (95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91 kg). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that, despite the large body of evidence on efficacy of lifestyle interventions during pregnancy in optimizing gestational weight gain, little guidance is available to inform implementation of this evidence into practice. There is a need to better elucidate implementation outcomes in trial design alongside pragmatic implementation research to improve the health of women who are pregnant and the next generation.
Authors: N Oostdam; M N M van Poppel; M G A J Wouters; E M W Eekhoff; D J Bekedam; W K H Kuchenbecker; H W P Quartero; M H B Heres; W van Mechelen Journal: BJOG Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: R Deveer; M Deveer; E Akbaba; Y Engin-Üstün; P Aydoğan; H Celikkaya; N Danişman; L Mollamahmutoğlu Journal: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: M Brik; I Fernández-Buhigas; A Martin-Arias; M Vargas-Terrones; R Barakat; B Santacruz Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Luke Wolfenden; Robbie Foy; Justin Presseau; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Noah M Ivers; Byron J Powell; Monica Taljaard; John Wiggers; Rachel Sutherland; Nicole Nathan; Christopher M Williams; Melanie Kingsland; Andrew Milat; Rebecca K Hodder; Sze Lin Yoong Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-01-18
Authors: Kimberly K Vesco; Njeri Karanja; Janet C King; Matthew W Gillman; Michael C Leo; Nancy Perrin; Cindy T McEvoy; Cara L Eckhardt; K Sabina Smith; Victor J Stevens Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Rebecca F Goldstein; Sally K Abell; Sanjeeva Ranasinha; Marie L Misso; Jacqueline A Boyle; Cheryce L Harrison; Mary Helen Black; Nan Li; Gang Hu; Francesco Corrado; Hanne Hegaard; Young Ju Kim; Margaretha Haugen; Won O Song; Min Hyoung Kim; Annick Bogaerts; Roland Devlieger; Judith H Chung; Helena J Teede Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 8.775