Search

Background: Mother and baby units (MBUs) are an inpatient mental health service where women experiencing acute severe postpartum psychiatric difficulties can be admitted with their babies. They are currently viewed as best practice in the UK and elsewhere. However, as service provision is fragmented, some women residing in areas without MBUs are admitted to acute general psychiatric wards without their infants. This study aimed to compare qualitatively experiences of these two service types from the perspectives of women and clinicians. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen women who received treatment for perinatal mental health problems on a general psychiatric ward and/or MBU in England. Two focus groups were also conducted, one with MBU staff (n = 11) and one with acute ward staff (n = 6). Data were analysed thematically. Results: Women generally preferred being co-admitted with their baby to an MBU over lone admission to a general psychiatric ward. Women and clinicians felt that MBUs provided more perinatally-focused, family-centred care, and were better-equipped to meet women's needs. General wards were reported by women and staff to lack the necessary facilities and expertise to support perinatal women adequately, while separation of mothers and babies was often experienced by women as traumatic and detrimental to recovery. However, some areas for improvement were also identified across both service types, particularly relating to difficulties transitioning home post-discharge, inadequate support for family members, staffing issues and access problems (with MBUs). Conclusions: Findings suggest that specialist perinatal inpatient care is considered preferable to generic care in the perinatal period from both service user and staff perspectives. Increased collaboration between perinatal and non-perinatal services could help improve perinatal expertise on general psychiatric wards, while further expansion of perinatal services (e.g. to cater for women currently considered too high risk for MBUs and for those discharged from inpatient settings) could tackle other shortfalls in care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials are fundamental to healthcare, however, they also contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Following previous work to develop and test a method and guidance to calculate the carbon footprint of clinical trials, we have now applied the guidance to 10 further UK and international, academically sponsored clinical trials to continue the identification of hotspots and opportunities for lower carbon trial design., Methods: 10 collaborating clinical trial units (CTUs) self-identified and a trial was selected from their portfolio to represent a variety of designs, health areas and interventions. Trial activity data was collated by trial teams across 10 modules spanning trial setup through to closure, then multiplied by emission factors provided in the guidance to calculate the carbon footprint. Feedback was collected from trial teams on the process, experience and ease of use of the guidance., Results: We footprinted 10 trials: 6 investigational medicinal product trials, 1 nutritional, 1 surgical, 1 health surveillance and one complex intervention trial. Six of these were completed and four ongoing (two in follow-up and two recruiting). The carbon footprint of the 10 trials ranged from 16 to 765 tonnes CO 2 e. Common hotspots were identified as CTU emissions, trial-specific patient assessments and trial team meetings and travel. Hotspots for specific trial designs were also identified. The time taken to collate activity data and complete carbon calculations ranged from 5 to 60 hours. The draft guidance was updated to include new activities identified from the 10 trials and in response to user feedback., Discussion: There are opportunities to reduce the impact of trials across all modules, particularly trial-specific meetings and travel, patient assessments and laboratory practice. A trial's carbon footprint should be considered at the design stage, but work is required to make this common place., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JG, LF, JB and PRW have received NIHR funding to undertake this study (support for the manuscript). FA is the paid chair of the Sustainable Healthcare Coalition. RA-SS reports clinical study grants from the British Heart Foundation and Chief Scientist Office Health Improvement, Protection and Services Research Committee Project Grant; consulting fees from Recursion Pharmaceuticals and Bioxodes, and payment from European Stroke Masters (European Stroke Organisation). RA-SS participates on the Novo Nordisk NN9931-4553 and NN9931-4554 endpoint adjudication committee and is the clinical director of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration network of registered Clinical Trials Units. CA is the Vice President of the World Stroke Organisation, Editor-in-chief of Cerebrovascular Diseases and Associate Editor of International Journal of Stroke; reports grants or contracts from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia, Medical Research Council (MRC) of the UK, Medical Research Foundation (MRF) of the UK, Penumbra and Takeda; consulting fees from AstraZeneca Advisory Board and participation on Dutch DIST trial. CG is supported by the NIHR CTU efficiency call. KG receives consulting fees from Boehringer & Ingelheim (unrelated to this work) and is Chair of the ICTMC 2024 Scientific Committee. KH is the Deputy Chair of the NIHR Research Professors panel and was previously a member of the NIHR HTA General Committee. CN is an unpaid information specialist in a priority setting partnership for adults living with type 1 diabetes. SP reports grants or contracts from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, NIH, MRC, EDCTP and Janssen-Cilag and is a DSMB member for the academic NIHR–funded trial TIPAL. SO’R, LM and JM are supported by funding from Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland MRSy is an independent unpaid member of many Independent Data Monitoring Committees for academic sponsors; reports grants or contracts from Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis; consulting fees from Eli Lilly; speaker fees from Janssen and AstraZeneca, and payment from Eisai, all unrelated to the topic of this comment. EM, AB, DC, FY, LW, XC, CM, PD, NM, AP, KM, EB, FD and CK report no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)