Wellcome Trust, Ammalife, and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Birmingham and the Black Country programme.

The objective was to gain insight into the experiences of women and their partners diagnosed with a fetal abnormality on prenatal ultrasound examination and receiving genetic testing including microarray. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were performed with women +/- their partners after receiving the results of prenatal genetic testing. Framework analysis was performed to elicit themes and subthemes. Five main themes were recognized; diagnosis, genetic testing, family and support, reflections of the treatment received and emotions. Our results showed that women recall being told about QFPCR for trisomy 13, 18, and 21 but often no further testing. Women expected the conventional karyotype and microarray result would be normal following a normal QFPCR result. There were frequent misconceptions by couples regarding aspects of counseling/testing. Communication of variants of unknown (clinical) significance (VOUS) presents a particularly difficult challenge. Good clear communication by health care professionals is paramount. When counseling women and their partners for fetal chromosomal testing it should be reinforced that although the most common, trisomy 13, 18, and 21 only account for some of the chromosomal changes resulting in abnormal scan findings. Couples should have literature to take home summarizing scan anomalies and reinforcing information about genetic testing.

Objective To review the effectiveness and safety of clinical officers (healthcare providers trained to perform tasks usually undertaken by doctors) carrying out caesarean section in developing countries compared with doctors.Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, BioMed Central, the Reproductive Health Library, and the Science Citation Index (inception-2010) without language restriction.Study selection Controlled studies.Data extraction Information was extracted from each selected article on study characteristics, quality, and outcome data. Two independent reviewers extracted data.Results Six non-randomised controlled studies (16 018 women) evaluated the effectiveness of clinical officers carrying out caesarean section. Meta-analysis found no significant differences between the clinical officers and doctors for maternal death (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 2.75; P=0.24) or for perinatal death (1.31, 0.87 to 1.95; P=0.19). The results were heterogeneous, with some studies reporting a higher incidence of both outcomes with clinical officers. Clinical officers were associated with a higher incidence of wound infection (1.58, 1.01 to 2.47; P=0.05) and wound dehiscence (1.89, 1.21 to 2.95; P=0.005). Two studies accounted for confounding factors.Conclusion Clinical officers and doctors did not differ significantly in key outcomes for caesarean section, but the conclusions are tentative owing to the non-randomised nature of the studies. The increase in wound infection and dehiscence may highlight a particular training need for clinical officers.

Themes should be appreciated within local contexts to illuminate barriers and facilitators. Potential solutions include motorcycle ambulance programs, collaboration with taxi services, community education, subsidies, and vehicle maintenance.

Objective To assess the effectiveness of strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants on the outcomes of perinatal, neonatal, and maternal death in developing countries.Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, the Allied and Complementary Medicine database, British Nursing Index, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, BioMed Central, PsycINFO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, African Index Medicus, Web of Science, Reproductive Health Library, and Science Citation Index (from inception to April 2011), without language restrictions. Search terms were "birth attend*", "traditional midwife", "lay birth attendant", "dais", and "comadronas". Review methodsWe selected randomised and non-randomised controlled studies with outcomes of perinatal, neonatal, and maternal mortality. Two independent reviewers undertook data extraction. We pooled relative risks separately for the randomised and non-randomised controlled studies, using a random effects model. ResultsWe identified six cluster randomised controlled trials (n=138 549) and seven non-randomised controlled studies (n=72 225) that investigated strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants. All six randomised controlled trials found a reduction in adverse perinatal outcomes; our meta-analysis showed significant reductions in perinatal death (relative risk 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.88, P<0.001; number needed to treat 35, 24 to 70) and neonatal death (0.79, 0.69 to 0.88, P<0.001; 98, 66 to 170). Meta-analysis of the non-randomised studies also showed a significant reduction in perinatal mortality (0.70, 0.57 to 0.84, p<0.001; 48, 32 to 96) and neonatal mortality (0.61, 0.48 to 0.75, P<0.001; 96, 65 to 168). Six studies reported on maternal mortality and our meta-analysis showed a non-significant reduction (three randomised trials, relative risk 0.79, 0.53 to 1.05, P=0.12; three non-randomised studies, 0.80, 0.44 to 1.15, P=0.26). ConclusionPerinatal and neonatal deaths are significantly reduced with strategies incorporating training and support of traditional birth attendants.