TY - JOUR
T1 - Women's views and postpartum follow-up in the CHIPS Trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study)
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 - The CHIPS Study Group
AU - Cardoso, Fernanda Freitas Oliveira
AU - Marques, Caio Coelho
AU - Hornos, Jorge
AU - Davdt, Ricardo Leal
AU - Paula, LetÃcia Germany
AU - Zanella, Pedro Luis
AU - Inglis, Gabrielle
AU - Dillon, Ruth
AU - Docherty, Ashley
AU - Hutfield, Anna
AU - Still, Keith
AU - Lalji, Sayrin
AU - Van Tent, Tamara
AU - Hotz, Chris
AU - Messmer, Tracy
AU - Ray, Joel G.
AU - Berger, Howard
AU - De Souza, Leanne
AU - Lausman, Andrea
AU - Freire-Lizama, Tatiana
AU - Besel, Kate
AU - Gibson, Paul
AU - Ellsworth, Greta
AU - Miller, Leslie
AU - Lee-Ann Hawkins, T.
AU - Hladunewich, Michelle
AU - Rogowsky, Anna
AU - Hui, Dini
AU - Collins, Virginia
AU - Delisle, Isabelle
AU - Fanning, Cora
AU - Demianczuk, Nestor
AU - Khurana, Rshmi
AU - Sia, Winnie
AU - Marnoch, Catherine
AU - Young, Carmen
AU - Lux, Cheryl
AU - Perreault, Sophie
AU - Tremblay, Valerie
AU - Côté, Anne Marie
AU - Desindes, Sophie
AU - Dagenais, Veronique
AU - Clark, Heather
AU - O’shea, Elaine
AU - White, Ruth Rennicks
AU - Gandhi, Shital
AU - Martin, Mary Jean
AU - Brush, Cheryl
AU - Seaward, Gareth
AU - Newstead-Angel, Jill
AU - Brandt, Judy
AU - Martel, Jocelyne
AU - Mytopher, Kristine
AU - Buschau, Elise
AU - Keely, Erin
AU - Waddell, Patti
AU - Shachkina, Svetlana
AU - Karovitch, Alan
AU - Anderson, Robert
AU - Koenig, Nicole
AU - Yong, Theresa
AU - Vasiliou, Marie
AU - Johnson, Peri
AU - Allan, Beth
AU - Natale, Renato
AU - Kennedy, Laura
AU - Opatrny, Lucie
AU - Lavigne, Lorraine
AU - Carson, George
AU - Kelly, Sheila
AU - Crane, Joan
AU - Hutchens, Donna
AU - Kusanovic, Juan Pedro
AU - Figueroa, Christian
AU - Neculman, Karla Silva
AU - Ortiz, Juan Andres
AU - Vargas, Paula
AU - Ferrand, Pedro
AU - Carrillo, Jorge
AU - Borrero, Rodrigo Cifuentes
AU - Gallo, Dahiana Marcela
AU - Moreno, Luisa Fernanda
AU - Kirss, Fred
AU - Rull, Kristiina
AU - Kirss, Anne
AU - Major, Tamas
AU - Fodor, Andrea
AU - Bartha, Tunde
AU - Hallak, Mordechai
AU - Aslih, Nardin
AU - Anabousi-Murra, Saja
AU - Pri-Or, Ester
AU - Harel, Linda
AU - Siev, Sima
AU - Hakim, Marwan
AU - Khoury, Christina Simona
AU - Hamati, Najla
AU - El-Zibdeh, Mazen
AU - Yousef, Lama
AU - Hughes, Ruth
AU - Leishman, Di
AU - Pullar, Barbra
AU - Farrant, Matthew
AU - Swiatkowska-Freund, Malgorzata
AU - Preis, Krzysztof
AU - Traczyk-Los, Anette Aleksandra
AU - Partyka, Anna
AU - Preis-Orlikowska, Joanna
AU - Lukaszuk, Mariusz
AU - Krasomski, Grzegorz
AU - Krekora, Michael
AU - Kedzierska-Markowicz, Anna
AU - Zych-Krekora, Katarzyna
AU - Breborowicz, Grzegorz H.
AU - Dera-Szymanowska, Anna
AU - Bakker, Jannet
AU - Akkermans, Joost
AU - Pels, Anouk
AU - van den Akker, Eline
AU - Logtenberg, Sabine
AU - Koenen, Steven
AU - de Reus, Maartje
AU - Borman, David
AU - Oudijk, Martijn A.
AU - Bolte, Annemiek
AU - Verfaille, Viki
AU - Graaf, Bart
AU - Porath, Martina
AU - Verhoeven, Corine
AU - Mol, Ben Willem
AU - Franssen, Maureen T.M.
AU - Ulkeman, Lida
AU - Hamming, Ineke
AU - Keurentjes, Jose H.M.
AU - van der Wal, Ina
AU - Nij Bijvank, S. W.A.
AU - Lutjes, A. A.
AU - Visser, Henricus
AU - Scheepers, Hubertina Catharina Johanna
AU - van Beek, Erik
AU - van Dam, Coby
AU - van den Berg-Swart, Kathy
AU - Pernet, Paula
AU - van der Goes, Birgit
AU - Schuitemaker, Nico
AU - Kleiverda, Gunilla
AU - van Alphen, Marcel
AU - Rosman, Ageeth
AU - Gaugler-Senden, Ingrid
AU - Linders, Marieke
AU - Nelson-Piercy, Catherine
AU - Briley, Annette
AU - Soh, May Ching
AU - Harding, Kate
AU - Tarft, Hayley
AU - Churchill, David
AU - Cheshire, Katherine
AU - Icke, Julia
AU - Ghosh, Mausumi
AU - Thornton, James
AU - Toomassi, Yvonne
AU - Barker, Karen
AU - Fisher, Joanne
AU - Grace, Nicky
AU - Green, Amanda
AU - Gower, Joanne
AU - Molnar, Anna
AU - Parameshwaran, Shobhana
AU - Simm, Andrew
AU - Bugg, George
AU - Davis, Yvette
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 & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
JF - European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
ER -