Suppr超能文献

产后访视日程安排。

Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.

机构信息

Department of Biostatistics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto, Japan.

Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Tuberculosis, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 21;7(7):CD009326. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009326.pub4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Maternal complications, including psychological/mental health problems and neonatal morbidity, have commonly been observed in the postpartum period. Home visits by health professionals or lay supporters in the weeks following birth may prevent health problems from becoming chronic, with long-term effects. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of different home-visiting schedules on maternal and newborn mortality during the early postpartum period. The review focuses on the frequency of home visits (how many home visits in total), the timing (when visits started, e.g. within 48 hours of the birth), duration (when visits ended), intensity (how many visits per week), and different types of home-visiting interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (19 May 2021), and checked reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-, quasi-RCTs and studies available only as abstracts) comparing different home-visiting interventions that enrolled participants in the early postpartum period (up to 42 days after birth) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies in which women were enrolled and received an intervention during the antenatal period (even if the intervention continued into the postnatal period), and studies recruiting only women from specific high-risk groups (e.g. women with alcohol or drug problems).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials with data for 12,080 women. The trials were carried out in countries across the world, in both high- and low-resource settings. In low-resource settings, women receiving usual care may have received no additional postnatal care after early hospital discharge. The interventions and controls varied considerably across studies. Trials focused on three broad types of comparisons, as detailed below. In all but four of the included studies, postnatal care at home was delivered by healthcare professionals. The aim of all interventions was broadly to assess the well-being of mothers and babies, and to provide education and support. However, some interventions had more specific aims, such as to encourage breastfeeding, or to provide practical support. For most of our outcomes, only one or two studies provided data, and results were inconsistent overall. All studies had several domains with high or unclear risk of bias. More versus fewer home visits (five studies, 2102 women) The evidence is very uncertain about whether home visits have any effect on maternal and neonatal mortality (very low-certainty evidence). Mean postnatal depression scores as measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) may be slightly higher (worse) with more home visits, though the difference in scores was not clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.79; two studies, 767 women; low-certainty evidence). Two separate analyses indicated conflicting results for maternal satisfaction (both low-certainty evidence); one indicated that there may be benefit with fewer visits, though the 95% CI just crossed the line of no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.02; two studies, 862 women). However, in another study, the additional support provided by health visitors was associated with increased mean satisfaction scores (MD 14.70, 95% CI 8.43 to 20.97; one study, 280 women; low-certainty evidence). Infant healthcare utilisation may be decreased with more home visits (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.64; four studies, 1365 infants) and exclusive breastfeeding at six weeks may be increased (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36; three studies, 960 women; low-certainty evidence). Serious neonatal morbidity up to six months was not reported in any trial. Different models of postnatal care (three studies, 4394 women) In a cluster-RCT comparing usual care with individualised care by midwives, extended up to three months after the birth, there may be little or no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; one study, 696 infants). The proportion of women with EPDS scores ≥ 13 at four months is probably reduced with individualised care (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; one study, 1295 women). One study suggests there may be little to no difference between home visits and telephone screening in neonatal morbidity up to 28 days (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; one study, 696 women). In a different study, there was no difference between breastfeeding promotion and routine visits in exclusive breastfeeding rates at six months (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.69; one study, 656 women). Home versus facility-based postnatal care (eight studies, 5179 women) The evidence suggests there may be little to no difference in postnatal depression rates at 42 days postpartum and also as measured on an EPDS scale at 60 days. Maternal satisfaction with postnatal care may be better with home visits (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.62; three studies, 2368 women). There may be little to no difference in infant emergency health care visits or infant hospital readmissions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; three studies, 3257 women) or in exclusive breastfeeding at two weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 study, 513 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of home visits on maternal and neonatal mortality. Individualised care as part of a package of home visits probably improves depression scores at four months and increasing the frequency of home visits may improve exclusive breastfeeding rates and infant healthcare utilisation. Maternal satisfaction may also be better with home visits compared to hospital check-ups. Overall, the certainty of evidence was found to be low and findings were not consistent among studies and comparisons. Further well designed RCTs evaluating this complex intervention will be required to formulate the optimal package.

摘要

背景

母婴并发症,包括心理/心理健康问题和新生儿发病率,在产后期间通常会观察到。在出生后几周内,由健康专业人员或非专业支持者进行家访,可能防止健康问题成为慢性问题,并产生长期影响。这是 2017 年发表的一篇综述的更新。

目的

本综述的主要目的是评估不同的家访计划对产后早期母婴死亡率的影响。该综述重点关注家访的频率(总共家访次数)、时间(家访何时开始,例如在出生后 48 小时内)、持续时间(家访何时结束)、强度(每周家访次数)和不同类型的家访干预。

检索方法

本次更新,我们检索了 Cochrane 妊娠和分娩组的试验注册库、ClinicalTrials.gov、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(2021 年 5 月 19 日),并检查了检索研究的参考文献列表。

选择标准

随机对照试验(RCTs)(包括群组、半随机对照试验和仅作为摘要提供的研究),将参与者纳入产后早期(出生后 42 天内)的不同家访干预措施的研究符合纳入标准。我们排除了在产前阶段(即使干预持续到产后阶段)招募女性并接受干预的研究,以及仅招募特定高风险群体(例如有酒精或药物问题的女性)的女性的研究。

数据收集和分析

两名综述作者独立评估试验的纳入和偏倚风险,提取数据并检查其准确性。我们使用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性。

主要结果

我们纳入了 16 项随机试验,涉及 12080 名女性。这些试验在世界各地的国家进行,包括高资源和低资源环境。在低资源环境中,接受常规护理的女性在早期出院后可能没有接受任何额外的产后护理。干预措施和对照组在研究之间差异很大。试验主要关注以下三种类型的比较,如下所述。除了四项研究之外,所有研究中的家庭护理都是由医疗保健专业人员提供的。所有干预措施的总体目标是评估母婴的健康状况,并提供教育和支持。然而,一些干预措施有更具体的目标,例如鼓励母乳喂养或提供实际支持。对于我们的大多数结果,只有一项或两项研究提供了数据,结果总体上不一致。所有研究在多个领域都存在高或不确定的偏倚风险。家访次数更多(五项研究,2102 名女性)家庭访问对母婴死亡率的影响的证据非常不确定(极低确定性证据)。使用爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)测量的产后抑郁评分可能略高(更差),但评分差异无临床意义(平均差异(MD)1.02,95%置信区间(CI)0.25 至 1.79;两项研究,767 名女性;低确定性证据)。两项单独的分析表明,产妇满意度存在相互矛盾的结果(均为低确定性证据);一项分析表明,访问次数较少可能会有好处,尽管 95%CI 刚刚越过无效应线(风险比(RR)0.96,95%CI 0.90 至 1.02;两项研究,862 名女性)。然而,在另一项研究中,健康访视者提供的额外支持与平均满意度评分的增加有关(MD 14.70,95%CI 8.43 至 20.97;一项研究,280 名女性;低确定性证据)。家访次数增加可能会降低婴儿的医疗保健利用率(RR 0.48,95%CI 0.36 至 0.64;四项研究,1365 名婴儿),并且六周时的纯母乳喂养率可能会增加(RR 1.17,95%CI 1.01 至 1.36;三项研究,960 名女性;低确定性证据)。任何试验均未报告严重的新生儿发病率至六个月。不同的产后护理模式(三项研究,4394 名女性)在一项比较常规护理与由助产士提供的个体化护理的群组随机对照试验中,护理时间延长至出生后三个月,新生儿死亡率可能没有差异(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.85 至 1.12;一项研究,696 名婴儿)。接受个体化护理的女性在四个月时 EPDS 评分≥13 的比例可能较低(RR 0.68,95%CI 0.53 至 0.86;一项研究,1295 名女性)。一项研究表明,家庭访视与电话筛查在 28 天内的新生儿发病率方面可能没有差异(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.85 至 1.12;一项研究,696 名女性)。在另一项研究中,母乳喂养促进与常规访视在六个月时的纯母乳喂养率方面没有差异(RR 1.47,95%CI 0.81 至 2.69;一项研究,656 名女性)。家访与机构产后护理(八项研究,5179 名女性)家庭访问对产后 42 天和 60 天的产后抑郁率的影响的证据表明,可能没有差异。产妇对产后护理的满意度可能通过家访更好(RR 1.36,95%CI 1.14 至 1.62;三项研究,2368 名女性)。急诊婴儿保健就诊或婴儿住院再入院(RR 1.15,95%CI 0.95 至 1.38;三项研究,3257 名女性)或两周时的纯母乳喂养率(RR 1.05,95%CI 0.93 至 1.18;一项研究,513 名女性)可能没有差异。

作者结论

家庭访问对母婴死亡率的影响的证据非常不确定。作为家访一部分的个体化护理可能会改善四个月时的抑郁评分,增加家访频率可能会提高纯母乳喂养率和婴儿的医疗保健利用率。产妇满意度也可能通过家访与医院检查相比得到改善。总体而言,证据的确定性水平较低,研究和比较之间的结果不一致。需要进一步进行精心设计的 RCT 来制定最佳的干预方案。

相似文献

1
Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.产后访视日程安排。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jul 21;7(7):CD009326. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009326.pub4.
2
Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.产后早期家访时间表。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 2;8(8):CD009326. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009326.pub3.
3
Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.产后早期的家访时间表。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 23(7):CD009326. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009326.pub2.
4
Early postnatal discharge from hospital for healthy mothers and term infants.健康母亲和足月婴儿的产后早期出院。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 8;6(6):CD002958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002958.pub2.
5
Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period.产后早期家访时间表。
Evid Based Child Health. 2014 Mar;9(1):5-99. doi: 10.1002/ebch.1960.
7
Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.支持健康足月婴儿的母乳喂养母亲。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Oct 25;10(10):CD001141. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub6.
8
Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation.妊娠37周及以后引产。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 15;7(7):CD004945. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5.
10
Assessment and support during early labour for improving birth outcomes.分娩早期的评估与支持以改善分娩结局
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 20;4(4):CD011516. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011516.pub2.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Randomized control trial of postpartum visits at 2 and 6 weeks.随机对照试验产后 2 周和 6 周访视。
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021 Jul;3(4):100363. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100363. Epub 2021 Mar 27.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验