Search

Background: 20–25% pregnant women in the UK carry group B streptococcus (GBS) which, if left undetected, is transmitted from pregnant mothers to their babies during birth in 36% of cases. This transmission leads to early onset GBS infection (EOGBS) in 1% of babies which is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in newborns. The literature available suggests women's knowledge of GBS is low, with many women unaware of the GBS bacterium. In addition, attitudes towards GBS testing have not been widely examined, with research mostly focusing on attitudes towards potential GBS vaccination. Aim: To examine women's knowledge of GBS in pregnancy and their attitudes towards GBS testing. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 19 women (5 pregnant and 14 postpartum). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using systematic thematic analysis. Results: Four main theme categories were identified. Participants had varying levels of awareness of GBS, with the information provided by health professionals not being clearly explained or the importance of GBS being downplayed. Participants wanted more information and to feel informed. Overall, the majority had positive attitudes towards being offered and taking up GBS testing, and this study identified some of the key factors influencing their decision. These included: seeing GBS testing as just another routine procedure during pregnancy; that it would lower the risk of their baby becoming unwell; provide reassurance; and allow them to prepare; and provide informed choices. Participants also expressed a few common concerns about GBS testing: questioning the invasiveness of the procedure; risks to themselves and the baby; and the risk of receiving antibiotics. Conclusions: Women need clear, detailed information about GBS and GBS testing, and women's concerns are important to address if routine GBS testing is implemented. The efficacy of implementing routine universal testing in the UK is currently being investigated in a large multi-centre clinical trial; the GBS3trial, further qualitative research is needed to look at the acceptability of different methods of GBS testing, as well as the acceptability of GBS testing to women in specific groups, such as those planning a home birth or those from different ethnic backgrounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gait impairment limiting mobility and restricting activities is common after stroke. Auditory rhythmical cueing (ARC) uses a metronome beat delivered during exercise to train stepping and early work reports gait improvements. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of a full scale multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate an ARC gait and balance training programme for use by stroke survivors in the home and outdoors. Methods: A parallel-group observer-blind pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted. Adults within 2 years of stroke with a gait-related mobility impairment were recruited from four NHS stroke services and randomised to an ARC gait and balance training programme (intervention) or the training programme without ARC (control). Both programmes consisted of 3x30 min sessions per week for 6 weeks undertaken at home/nearby outdoor community. One session per week was supervised and the remainder self-managed. Gait and balance performance assessments were undertaken at baseline, 6 and 10 weeks. Key trial outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, programme adherence, assessment data completeness and safety. Results: Between November 2018 and February 2020, 59 participants were randomised (intervention n=30, control n=29), mean recruitment rate 4/month. At baseline, 6 weeks and 10 weeks, research assessments were conducted for 59/59 (100%), 47/59 (80%) and 42/59 (71%) participants, respectively. Missing assessments were largely due to discontinuation of data collection from mid-March 2020 because of the UK COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. The proportion of participants with complete data for each individual performance assessment ranged from 100% at baseline to 68% at 10 weeks. In the intervention group, 433/540 (80%) total programme exercise sessions were undertaken, in the control group, 390/522 (75%). Falls were reported by five participants in the intervention group, six in the control group. Three serious adverse events occurred, all unrelated to the study. Conclusion: We believe that a definitive multicentre RCT to evaluate the ARC gait and balance training programme is feasible. Recruitment, programme adherence and safety were all acceptable. Although we consider that the retention rate and assessment data completeness were not sufficient for a future trial, this was largely due to the UK COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN10874601, Registered on 05/03/2018, [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]