TY - JOUR
T1 - Women's views and postpartum follow-up in the CHIPS Trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study)
AU - The CHIPS Study Group
AU - Vidler, Marianne
AU - Magee, Laura A.
AU - von Dadelszen, Peter
AU - Rey, Evelyne
AU - Ross, Susan
AU - Asztalos, Elizabeth
AU - Murphy, Kellie E.
AU - Menzies, Jennifer
AU - Sanchez, Johanna
AU - Singer, Joel
AU - Gafni, Amiram
AU - Gruslin, Andrée
AU - Helewa, Michael
AU - Hutton, Eileen
AU - Lee, Shoo K.
AU - Lee, Terry
AU - Logan, Alexander G.
AU - Ganzevoort, Wessel
AU - Welch, Ross
AU - Thornton, Jim G.
AU - Moutquin, Jean Marie
AU - Ross, Sue
AU - Hoac, Trinh
AU - Kirton, Joanne
AU - Trigiani, Katherine
AU - Zahid, Ainy
AU - Bracken, Michael B.
AU - Crowley, Patricia
AU - Duley, Lelia
AU - Ehrenkranz, Richard
AU - Thorpe, Kevin
AU - Chan, Sunny
AU - Shi, Michael
AU - Yu, Shelley
AU - Martin, Raquel de Lourdes
AU - Bassi, Maria Florencia
AU - Caruso, Mirta Clara
AU - Lagunas, Valeria
AU - Vera, Fernando
AU - de Duhalde, Maria Mohedano
AU - Roque, Alicia Beatriz
AU - Roldan, Patricia
AU - Duhalde, Esteban Marcos
AU - Dip, Viviana
AU - Aguirre, Jesus Daniel
AU - Morales, Elba Mirta Alicia
AU - Abreo, Griselda Itati
AU - De Sagastizabal, Teresa
AU - Gomez, Carolina
AU - Hallak, Mordechai
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 The Author(s)
PY - 2016/11/1
Y1 - 2016/11/1
N2 - Objective To compare women's views about blood pressure (BP) control in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study) (NCT01192412). Design Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. Setting International randomised trial (94 sites, 15 countries). Population/sample 911 (92.9%) women randomised to ‘tight’ (target diastolic blood pressure, 85 mmHg) or ‘less tight’ (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mmHg) who completed questionnaires. Methods A questionnaire was administered at ∼6–12 weeks postpartum regarding post-discharge morbidity and views about trial participation. Questionnaires were administered by the site co-ordinator, and contact was made by phone, home or clinic visit; rarely, data was collected from medical records. Quantitative analyses were Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, mixed effects multinomial logistic regression to adjust for confounders, and p < 0.001 for statistical significance. NVivo software was used for thematic analysis of women's views. Main outcome measures Satisfaction, measured as willingness to have the same treatment in another pregnancy or recommend that treatment to a friend. Results Among the 533 women in ‘tight’ (N = 265) vs. ‘less tight’ (N = 268) control who provided comments for qualitative analysis, women in ‘tight’ (vs. ‘less tight’) control made fewer positive comments about the amount of medication taken (5 vs. 28 women, respectively) and intensity of BP monitoring (7 vs. 17, respectively). However, this did not translate into less willingness to either have the same treatment in another pregnancy (434, 95.8% vs. 423, 92.4%, respectively; p = 0.14) or recommend that treatment to a friend (435, 96.0% and 428, 93.4%, respectively; p = 0.17). Importantly, although satisfaction remained high among women with an adverse outcome, those in ‘tight’ control who suffered an adverse outcome (vs. those who did not) were not consistently less satisfied, whereas this was not the case among women in ‘less tight’ control among whom satisfaction was consistently lower for the CHIPS primary outcome (p < 0.001), severe hypertension (p ≤ 0.01), and pre-eclampsia (p < 0.001). Conclusions Women in ‘tight’ (vs. ‘less tight’) control were equally satisfied with their care, and more so in the face of adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes.
AB - Objective To compare women's views about blood pressure (BP) control in CHIPS (Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study) (NCT01192412). Design Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. Setting International randomised trial (94 sites, 15 countries). Population/sample 911 (92.9%) women randomised to ‘tight’ (target diastolic blood pressure, 85 mmHg) or ‘less tight’ (target diastolic blood pressure, 100 mmHg) who completed questionnaires. Methods A questionnaire was administered at ∼6–12 weeks postpartum regarding post-discharge morbidity and views about trial participation. Questionnaires were administered by the site co-ordinator, and contact was made by phone, home or clinic visit; rarely, data was collected from medical records. Quantitative analyses were Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, mixed effects multinomial logistic regression to adjust for confounders, and p < 0.001 for statistical significance. NVivo software was used for thematic analysis of women's views. Main outcome measures Satisfaction, measured as willingness to have the same treatment in another pregnancy or recommend that treatment to a friend. Results Among the 533 women in ‘tight’ (N = 265) vs. ‘less tight’ (N = 268) control who provided comments for qualitative analysis, women in ‘tight’ (vs. ‘less tight’) control made fewer positive comments about the amount of medication taken (5 vs. 28 women, respectively) and intensity of BP monitoring (7 vs. 17, respectively). However, this did not translate into less willingness to either have the same treatment in another pregnancy (434, 95.8% vs. 423, 92.4%, respectively; p = 0.14) or recommend that treatment to a friend (435, 96.0% and 428, 93.4%, respectively; p = 0.17). Importantly, although satisfaction remained high among women with an adverse outcome, those in ‘tight’ control who suffered an adverse outcome (vs. those who did not) were not consistently less satisfied, whereas this was not the case among women in ‘less tight’ control among whom satisfaction was consistently lower for the CHIPS primary outcome (p < 0.001), severe hypertension (p ≤ 0.01), and pre-eclampsia (p < 0.001). Conclusions Women in ‘tight’ (vs. ‘less tight’) control were equally satisfied with their care, and more so in the face of adverse perinatal or maternal outcomes.
KW - Blood pressure control
KW - Hypertension
KW - Postpartum
KW - Pregnancy
KW - Satisfaction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988465003&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.509
DO - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.509
M3 - Article
C2 - 27665372
AN - SCOPUS:84988465003
SN - 0301-2115
VL - 206
SP - 105
EP - 113
JO - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
JF - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
ER -