Search

Abstract Background The rising rates of primary caesarean section have resulted in a larger obstetric population with scarred uteri. Subsequent pregnancies in these women are risk-prone and may complicate. Besides ensuring standardised management, care pathways could be used to evaluate for perinatal outcomes in these high risk pregnancies. We aim to demonstrate the use of a care pathway for vaginal birth after caesarean section as a service evaluation tool to determine perinatal outcomes. Methods A retrospective service evaluation by review of delivery case notes and records was undertaken at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya between January 2008 and December 2009 Women with ≥2 previous caesarean sections, previous classical caesarean section, multiple gestation, breech presentation, severe pre-eclampsia, transverse lie, placenta praevia, conditions requiring induction of labour and incomplete records were excluded. Outcome measures included the proportion of eligible women who opted for test of scar (ToS), success rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC); proportion on women opting for elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS) and their perinatal outcomes. Results A total of 215 women with one previous caesarean section were followed up using a standard care pathway. The median parity (minimum-maximum) was 1.01234. The other demographic characteristics were comparable. Only 44.6% of eligible mothers opted to have a ToS. The success rate for VBAC was 49.4% with the commonest (31.8%) reason for failure being protracted active phase of labour. Maternal morbidity was comparable for the failed and successful VBAC group. The incidence of hemorrhage was 2.3% and 4.4% for the successful and failed VBAC groups respectively. The proportion of babies with acidotic arterial PH (< 7.10) was 3.1% and 22.2% among the successful and failed VBAC groups respectively. No perinatal mortality was reported. Conclusions Besides ensuring standardised management, care pathways could be objective audit and service evaluation tools for determining perinatal outcomes.

Transboundary health partnerships are shaped by global inequities. Perspectives from the "global South" are critical to understand and redress power asymmetries in research partnerships yet are not often included in current guidelines. We undertook research with partners working with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM) to inform LSTM's equitable partnership strategy and co-develop principles for equitable partnerships as an entry point towards broader transformative action on research partnerships. We applied mixed-methods and participatory approaches. An online survey (n = 21) was conducted with LSTM's transboundary partners on fairness of opportunity, fair process, and fair sharing of benefits, triangulated with key informant interviews (n = 12). Qualitative narratives were analysed using the thematic framework approach. Findings were presented in a participatory workshop (n = 11) with partners to co-develop principles, which were refined and checked with stakeholders. Early inclusion emerged as fundamental to equitable partnerships, reflected in principle one: all partners to input into research design, agenda-setting and outputs to reflect priorities. Transparency is highlighted in principle two to guide all stages including agenda-setting, budgeting, data ownership and authorship. Principle three underscores the importance of contextually embedded knowledge for relevant and impactful research. Multi-directional capacity strengthening across all cadres is highlighted in principle four. Principle five includes LSTM leveraging their position for strategic and deliberate promotion of transboundary partners in international forums. A multi-centric model of partnership with no centralised power is promoted in principle six. Finally, principle seven emphasises commitment to the principles and Global Code of Conduct values: Fairness, Respect, Care, Honesty. The co-developed principles are part of ongoing reflections and dialogue to improve and undo harmful power structures that perpetuate coloniality within global health. While this process was conducted with LSTM-Liverpool's existing partners, the principles to strengthen equity are applicable to other institutions engaged in transboundary research partnerships and relevant for funders., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Karuga et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Safeguarding is rapidly rising up the international development agenda, yet literature on safeguarding in related research is limited. This paper shares processes and practice relating to safeguarding within an international research consortium (the ARISE hub, known as ARISE). ARISE aims to enhance accountability and improve the health and well-being of marginalised people living and working in informal urban spaces in low-income and middle-income countries (Bangladesh, India, Kenya and Sierra Leone). Our manuscript is divided into three key sections. We start by discussing the importance of safeguarding in global health research and consider how thinking about vulnerability as a relational concept (shaped by unequal power relations and structural violence) can help locate fluid and context specific safeguarding risks within broader social systems. We then discuss the different steps undertaken in ARISE to develop a shared approach to safeguarding: sharing institutional guidelines and practice; facilitating a participatory process to agree a working definition of safeguarding and joint understandings of vulnerabilities, risks and mitigation strategies and share experiences; developing action plans for safeguarding. This is followed by reflection on our key learnings including how safeguarding, ethics and health and safety concerns overlap; the challenges of referral and support for safeguarding concerns within frequently underserved informal urban spaces; and the importance of reflective practice and critical thinking about power, judgement and positionality and the ownership of the global narrative surrounding safeguarding. We finish by situating our learning within debates on decolonising science and argue for the importance of an iterative, ongoing learning journey that is critical, reflective and inclusive of vulnerable people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)