Cargando…

Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Regular weighing in pregnant women is not currently recommended in many countries but has been suggested to prevent excessive gestational weight gain. This study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating regular weighing, setting maximum weight gain targets an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Daley, AJ, Jolly, K., Jebb, SA, Lewis, AL, Clifford, S., Roalfe, AK, Kenyon, S., Aveyard, P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26401345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40608-015-0061-5
_version_ 1782390423582408704
author Daley, AJ
Jolly, K.
Jebb, SA
Lewis, AL
Clifford, S.
Roalfe, AK
Kenyon, S.
Aveyard, P.
author_facet Daley, AJ
Jolly, K.
Jebb, SA
Lewis, AL
Clifford, S.
Roalfe, AK
Kenyon, S.
Aveyard, P.
author_sort Daley, AJ
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Regular weighing in pregnant women is not currently recommended in many countries but has been suggested to prevent excessive gestational weight gain. This study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating regular weighing, setting maximum weight gain targets and feedback by community midwives. METHODS: Low risk pregnant women cared for by eight community midwives were randomised to usual care or usual care plus the intervention at 10–14 weeks of pregnancy. The intervention involved community midwives weighing and plotting weight on a weight gain chart, setting weight gain limit targets, giving brief feedback at each antenatal appointment and encouraging women to weigh themselves weekly between antenatal appointments. Women and midwives were interviewed about their views of the intervention. The focus of the study was on process evaluation. RESULTS: Community midwives referred 123 women and 115 were scheduled for their dating scan within the study period. Of these, 84/115 were approached at their dating scan and 76/84 (90.5 %) randomised. Data showed a modest difference favouring the intervention group in the percentage of women gaining excessive gestational weight (23.5 % versus 29.4 %). The intervention group consistently reported smaller increases in depression and anxiety scores throughout pregnancy compared with usual care. Most women commented the intervention was useful in encouraging them to think about their weight and believed it should be part of routine antenatal care. Community midwives felt the intervention could be implemented within routine care without adding substantially to consultation length, thus not perceived as adding substantially to their workload. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was feasible and acceptable to pregnant women and community midwives and was readily implemented in routine care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN81605162
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4572649
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45726492015-09-23 Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study Daley, AJ Jolly, K. Jebb, SA Lewis, AL Clifford, S. Roalfe, AK Kenyon, S. Aveyard, P. BMC Obes Research Article BACKGROUND: Regular weighing in pregnant women is not currently recommended in many countries but has been suggested to prevent excessive gestational weight gain. This study aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating regular weighing, setting maximum weight gain targets and feedback by community midwives. METHODS: Low risk pregnant women cared for by eight community midwives were randomised to usual care or usual care plus the intervention at 10–14 weeks of pregnancy. The intervention involved community midwives weighing and plotting weight on a weight gain chart, setting weight gain limit targets, giving brief feedback at each antenatal appointment and encouraging women to weigh themselves weekly between antenatal appointments. Women and midwives were interviewed about their views of the intervention. The focus of the study was on process evaluation. RESULTS: Community midwives referred 123 women and 115 were scheduled for their dating scan within the study period. Of these, 84/115 were approached at their dating scan and 76/84 (90.5 %) randomised. Data showed a modest difference favouring the intervention group in the percentage of women gaining excessive gestational weight (23.5 % versus 29.4 %). The intervention group consistently reported smaller increases in depression and anxiety scores throughout pregnancy compared with usual care. Most women commented the intervention was useful in encouraging them to think about their weight and believed it should be part of routine antenatal care. Community midwives felt the intervention could be implemented within routine care without adding substantially to consultation length, thus not perceived as adding substantially to their workload. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was feasible and acceptable to pregnant women and community midwives and was readily implemented in routine care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN81605162 BioMed Central 2015-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4572649/ /pubmed/26401345 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40608-015-0061-5 Text en © Daley et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Daley, AJ
Jolly, K.
Jebb, SA
Lewis, AL
Clifford, S.
Roalfe, AK
Kenyon, S.
Aveyard, P.
Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
title Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
title_full Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
title_fullStr Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
title_short Feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
title_sort feasibility and acceptability of regular weighing, setting weight gain limits and providing feedback by community midwives to prevent excess weight gain during pregnancy: randomised controlled trial and qualitative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26401345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40608-015-0061-5
work_keys_str_mv AT daleyaj feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT jollyk feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT jebbsa feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT lewisal feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT cliffords feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT roalfeak feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT kenyons feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy
AT aveyardp feasibilityandacceptabilityofregularweighingsettingweightgainlimitsandprovidingfeedbackbycommunitymidwivestopreventexcessweightgainduringpregnancyrandomisedcontrolledtrialandqualitativestudy