↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a novel vital sign device to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings: a mixed method feasibility study for the CRADLE-3 trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of a novel vital sign device to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings: a mixed method feasibility study for the CRADLE-3 trial
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12884-018-1737-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Vousden, Elodie Lawley, Hannah L. Nathan, Paul T. Seed, Adrian Brown, Tafadzwa Muchengwa, Umesh Charantimath, Mrutyunjaya Bellad, Muchabayiwa Francis Gidiri, Shivaprasad Goudar, Lucy C. Chappell, Jane Sandall, Andrew H. Shennan, on behalf of the CRADLE Trial Collaborative Group

Abstract

The CRADLE-3 trial is a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial aiming to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity by implementing a novel vital sign device (CRADLE Vital Sign Alert) and training package into routine maternity care in 10 low-income sites. The MRC Guidance on complex interventions proposes that interventions and implementation strategies be shaped by early phase piloting and development work. We present the findings of a three-month mixed-methodology feasibility study for this trial, describe how this was informed by the MRC guidance and the study design was refined. The fidelity, dose, feasibility and acceptability of implementation and training materials were assessed in three representative non-trial sites (Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India) using multiple-choice questionnaires, evaluation of clinical management (action log), healthcare provider (HCP) semi-structured interviews and focus groups 4-10 weeks after implementation. Simultaneously, the 10 sites included in the main trial (eight countries) collected primary outcome data to inform the power calculation and randomisation allocation and assess the feasibility of data collection. The package was implemented with high fidelity (85% of HCP trained, n = 204). The questionnaires indicated a good understanding of device use with 75% of participants scoring > 75% (n = 97; 90% of those distributed). Action logs were inconsistently completed but indicated that the majority of HCP responded appropriately to abnormal results. From 18 HCP interviews and two focus groups it was widely reported that the intervention improved capacity to make clinical decisions, escalate care and make appropriate referrals. Nine of the ten main trial sites achieved ethical approval for pilot data collection. Intensive care was an inconsistent marker of morbidity and stroke an infrequent outcome and therefore they were removed from the main trial composite outcome. Tools and methods of data collection were optimized and event rates used to inform randomisation. This feasibility study demonstrates that the components of the intervention were acceptable, methods of implementing were successful and the main trial design would be feasible. Qualitative work identified key moderators that informed the main trial process evaluation. Changes to the training package, implementation strategy, study design and processes were identified to refine the implementation in the main trial. ISRCTN41244132 ; Registered 24/11/2015.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 42 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,816,262
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,508
of 4,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,597
of 326,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#62
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.