BackgroundMother-to-infant bonding is defined as the emotional tie experienced by a mother towards her child, which is considered to be important for the socio-emotional development of the child. Numerous studies on the correlates of both prenatal and postnatal mother-to-infant bonding quality have been published over the last decades. An up-to-date systematic review of these correlates is lacking, however.ObjectiveTo systematically review correlates of prenatal and postnatal mother-to-infant bonding quality in the general population, in order to enable targeted interventions.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched through May 2018. Reference checks were performed. Case-control, cross-sectional or longitudinal cohort studies written in English, German, Swedish, Spanish, Norwegian, French or Dutch defining mother-to-infant bonding quality as stipulated in the protocol (PROSPERO CRD42016040183) were included. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts, full-text articles and extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional studies and was rated accordingly as poor, fair or good. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity were examined.Main results131 studies were included. Quality was fair for 20 studies, and poor for 111 studies. Among 123 correlates identified, 3 were consistently associated with mother-to-infant bonding quality: 1) duration of gestation at assessment was positively associated with prenatal bonding quality, 2) depressive symptoms were negatively associated with postnatal mother-to-infant bonding quality, and 3) mother-to-infant bonding quality earlier in pregnancy or postpartum was positively associated with mother-to-infant bonding quality later in time.ConclusionOur review suggests that professionals involved in maternal health care should consider monitoring mother-to-infant bonding already during pregnancy. Future research should evaluate whether interventions aimed at depressive symptoms help to promote mother-to-infant bonding quality. More high-quality research on correlates for which inconsistent results were found is needed.

No abstract

Purpose: General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly expected to deliver genetics services in daily patient care. Education in primary care genetics is considered suboptimal and in urgent need of revision and innovation. The aim of this study was to prioritize topics for genetics education for general practice. methods:A Delphi consensus procedure consisting of three rounds was conducted. A purposively selected heterogeneous panel (n = 18) of experts, comprising six practicing GPs who were also engaged in research, five GP trainers, four clinical genetics professionals, and three representatives of patient organizations, participated. Educational needs regarding genetics in general practice in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes were rated and ranked in a top-10 list. Results:The entire panel completed all three rounds. Kendall's coefficient of concordance indicated significant agreement regarding the top 10 genetic education needs (P < 0.001). "Recognizing signals that are potentially indicative of a hereditary component of a disease" was rated highest, followed by "Evaluating indications for referral to a clinical genetics centre" and "Knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of genetic tests. " conclusion:The priorities resulting from this study can inform the development of educational modules, including input for case-based education, to improve GP performance in genetic patient care.Genet Med 2012:14(3):323-329

BackgroundIntrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) is a major risk factor for perinatal mortality and morbidity. Thus, there is a compelling need to introduce sensitive measures to detect IUGR fetuses. Routine third trimester ultrasonography is increasingly used to detect IUGR. However, we lack evidence for its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and information on ethical considerations of additional third trimester ultrasonography. This nationwide stepped wedge cluster-randomized trial examines the (cost-)effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasonography in reducing severe adverse perinatal outcome through subsequent protocolized management.MethodsFor this trial, 15,000 women with a singleton pregnancy receiving care in 60 participating primary care midwifery practices will be included at 22 weeks of gestation. In the intervention (n = 7,500) and control group (n = 7,500) fetal growth will be monitored by serial fundal height assessments. All practices will start offering the control condition (ultrasonography based on medical indication). Every three months, 20 practices will be randomized to the intervention condition, i.e. apart from ultrasonography if indicated, two routine ultrasound examinations will be performed (at 28–30 weeks and 34–36 weeks). If IUGR is suspected, both groups will receive subsequent clinical management as described in the IRIS study protocol that will be developed before the start of the trial.The primary dichotomous clinical composite outcome is ‘severe adverse perinatal outcome’ up to 7 days after birth, including: perinatal death; Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes after birth; impaired consciousness; need for assisted ventilation for more than 24 h; asphyxia; septicemia; meningitis; bronchopulmonary dysplasia; intraventricular hemorrhage; cystic periventricular leukomalacia; neonatal seizures or necrotizing enterocolitis. For the economic evaluation, costs will be measured from a societal perspective. Quality of life will be measured using the EQ-5D-5 L to enable calculation of QALYs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed. In a qualitative sub-study (using diary notes from 32 women for 9 months, at least 10 individual interviews and 2 focus group studies) we will explore ethical considerations of additional ultrasonography and how to deal with them.DiscussionThe results of this trial will assist healthcare providers and policymakers in making an evidence-based decision about whether or not introducing routine third trimester ultrasonography.Trial registration NTR4367, 21 March 2014.

This study shows that most participants support more integration of care during labor. The lack of consensus among Dutch maternity care professionals with regard to the distribution of responsibilities and tasks for "moderate risk" indications is a challenge. Further studies should explore how to deal with differences in opinions among professionals when integrating maternity care systems.