Skip to main content
HRB Open Research logoLink to HRB Open Research
. 2023 Jul 26;6:35. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13751.1

Designing a behaviour change intervention to address the behavioural risk factors for stillbirth: A study protocol

Tamara Escañuela Sánchez 1,2,a, Karen Matvienko-Sikar 3, Richard A Greene 1, Molly Byrne 4, Keelin O'Donoghue 2,5
PMCID: PMC11803438  PMID: 39925645

Abstract

Introduction 

Stillbirth is a devastating outcome that, in some cases, has the potential to be prevented by addressing some of its modifiable risk factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, illicit drug use, high maternal weight, lack of attendance to antenatal care, and sleep position. The aim of this study will be to design a behaviour change intervention focusing on the behavioural risk factors for stillbirth and based on the COM-B model and the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) systematic framework.

Methods 

The first stage of the BCW framework involves understanding the target behaviour and defining the problem in behavioural terms. The second stage involves identifying intervention options, including intervention functions and policy categories. Finally, the third stage involves identifying content and implementation options, including behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and the mode of delivery. We will use multiple studies already conducted in our research team to inform the different stages of the BCW framework, these include a series of systematic reviews of the literature, qualitative interviews with pregnant women, and a survey study with healthcare professionals. Further, we will utilise a stakeholder group to obtain input through the process of the design of the intervention.

Discussion 

This protocol provides a systematic and evidence-based approach to intervention design. The systematic review of the literature, qualitative interviews, and expert consensus workshops will ensure that the intervention design is based on the needs and preferences of pregnant women, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders involved in stillbirth prevention. The proposed intervention could be adapted and implemented in other settings to prevent stillbirth in high-risk populations.

Keywords: stillbirth, stillbirth prevention, modifiable risk factors, behaviour change intervention, COM-B model, BCW, evidence-based approach

Introduction

Stillbirth is one of the most devastating outcomes that a woman and her family can experience 1 . Although not all, some cases of stillbirth are preventable, and hence, efforts are being conducted internationally to tackle the risk factors for stillbirth in order to reduce its rates 2 . Some of the modifiable risk factors for stillbirth include a behavioural component, meaning that they have the potential to be modified through behaviour change interventions. These risk factors are substance use (smoking 36 , alcohol consumption 7, 8 , illicit drug use 6 ), high maternal weight 911 , lack of attendance to antenatal care 12 , and sleep position 13, 14 . Although some interventions tackling the behavioural risk factors for stillbirth already exist 1517 , none of them have been designed to take into consideration all the different behavioural risk factors and the particularities regarding risk perception in the context of pregnancy and stillbirth, and with a behaviour change theory basis.

Behavioural theories are the accumulated knowledge of the assumptions of what behaviour is, how is it influenced, and what mechanisms of action will produce a change in behaviour 18 . Behavioural theories are important because they can help explain and facilitate understanding of the factors that influence behaviour, and through which mechanisms this behaviour is influenced 19 . Despite the importance and usefulness of behavioural theory, many behaviour change interventions have been designed without evidence or with a poor application of theory 20 . Mitchie et al. (2011) hypothesise that this is because the existing frameworks to date did not meet intervention designer’s needs, as they either contained poorly defined constructs or did not produce enough level of detail to address what is effective in an intervention and what is not 20 .

The COM-B model is a framework for understanding behaviour and how to change behaviour 21 . This model was generated to develop a behaviour change design methodology informed by behaviour theory. The authors identified three main factors that are considered sufficient and necessary for behaviour change: the necessary skills, a strong intention to perform the behaviour, and no environmental constraints to make the behaviour possible 18 . These are operationalised as Capability, Motivation, and Opportunity respectively. In the COM-B model, the three components interact and influence each other, hence, altering one has the potential to alter the others. In the COM-B model, Capability is defined as “the individual’s psychological and physical capacity to engage in the behaviour” 18 through, for example, knowledge or skills; and it is divided into Physical Capability and Psychological Capability. Opportunity is defined as “all the factors that lie outside the individual that make the behaviour possible or prompt it” 18 ; and it is subdivided into social opportunity and physical opportunity. Finally, Motivation is defined as “all those brain processes that energise and direct behaviour” 18 such as habitual processes, emotional responses, and analytical decision-making; and it is subdivided into reflexive motivation and automatic motivation.

The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the COM-B model represent potentially useful theories of behaviour that can be used in the context of stillbirth prevention because they incorporate internal factors, such as attitudes, co-occurring behaviours and co-founding factors 22 . The importance of the social context has been described in the literature in relation to behaviour change during pregnancy 23 . Moreover, it is also well established that the behaviours that have been associated with an increased risk of stillbirth often can co-occur ( e.g., smoking and alcohol consumption, smoking and illicit drug use, illicit drug use and lack of attendance at antenatal care, substance use and physical inactivity) 6, 24, 25 . Therefore, utilising a theory that takes into account factors that influence behaviour such as the physical and social environment is important to understand behaviour change during pregnancy 26 . The COM-B model has not been widely tested in the context of stillbirth prevention. However, previous research mapping factors influencing dietary behaviour, physical activity, smoking, and alcohol use 23 during pregnancy to the elements of the COM-B has concluded that all its factors (capability, opportunity and motivation) have a role in directing behaviour 26 .

The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) is a systematic framework providing a methodology for designing behaviour change interventions. This methodology proposes the elements of the COM-B model as mechanisms of action. The BCW provides intervention designers with a systematic process for intervention design composed of three main stages and eight steps exposed in Table 1.

Table 1. Stages and steps composing the Behaviour Change Wheel systematic process for intervention design.

Stage 1: Understanding the target behaviour Step 1: define the problem in behavioural terms.
Step 2: Select the target behaviour.
Step 3: Specify the target behaviour.
Step 4: identify what needs to change.
Stage 2: Identify intervention options Step 5: Identify intervention functions.
Step 6: Identify policy categories.
Stage 3: Identify content and implementation options Step 7: Identify behaviour change techniques (BCTs)
Step 8: Identify the mode of delivery.

The BCW framework has been used for behaviour change intervention design in the context of pregnancy. For example, Gould et al. (2017) successfully used the BCW to design an intervention to target smoking amongst Australian indigenous pregnant women 27 . Another example of an intervention designed using the BCT is the “stay-active” smartphone app developed by Smith et al. (2022) to increase physical activity in pregnant women 28 . The authors of both interventions report that utilising the BCW provided them with a systematic approach that facilitated the process. The process described in the studies published by both authors outlining their use of the BCW to inform the development of their interventions led to the design of two different interventions that are now being tested through feasibility studies 29, 30 . Hence, there is evidence in the literature that the BCW is a methodology suitable for intervention design applicable to pregnancy.

While the BCW provides a promising approach to informing design of behaviour change interventions that target behaviours associated with increased risk of stillbirth, to date, no intervention has been designed using the BCW and adopting a multi-target approach that might incorporate all of the relevant behaviours. Evidence from public health initiatives implemented in high-income countries provide evidence that further reduction in stillbirth rates is possible in Ireland 31, 32 . Hence, the main objective of this project is to utilise all of the evidence gathered in earlier stages of its development 3339 to inform the design of a behaviour change intervention tackling the modifiable risk factors for stillbirth.

Methods

Using all of the evidence generated from the studies composing this thesis, we will follow the process proposed by the BCW for intervention design.

Sources of evidence

The RELEVANT Study team is composed by researchers with expertise in different areas including health psychology, fetal and maternal medicine, population/public health, and behaviour change. A total of six projects composed of eight studies form the RELEVANT Study : (1) a literature review of risk factors for stillbirth; (2) a quantitative website content analysis exploring information provided online regarding stillbirth and risk factors; (3) three qualitative evidence syntheses exploring facilitators and barriers to modifying substance use, weight management, and antenatal care attendance; (4) a qualitative study exploring postpartum women’s experience of antenatal health education and their awareness of stillbirth and risk factors; (5) a systematic review of interventions to prevent stillbirth in high-income countries; and (6) a survey of healthcare professionals to identify barriers to communicating information about stillbirth and risk factors. The data obtained in these studies will be utilised to inform the BCW process for the development of a behaviour change intervention. For more information on the steps and stages of the Behaviour Change Wheel that each study will inform, please refer to Table 2.

Table 2. Sources of evidence, aims, findings and steps of the BCW informed.

Source code: Source title Study
design
Overview of aims Overview of findings Behaviour Change
Wheel phase(s) and
step(s) informed
S1: “Modifiable risk factors
for stillbirth: a literature
review” 35
Literature
review
•  To explore and examine
the available evidence in
relation to behavioural risk
factors for stillbirth.
•  To define the problem and
select target behaviours.
Four main modifiable risk factors
with a behavioural component
were found to have the strongest
evidence:
▪  Substance use (smoking, alcohol,
illicit drugs)
▪  Maternal weight
▪  Attendance & compliance with
antenatal care.
▪  Sleep position.
Stage 1: Steps 1, 2
S2: “Stillbirth and risk
factors: an evaluation of
Irish and UK websites” 37
Quantitative
content
analysis
•  To assess whether the
current online resources for
pregnant women are useful
to obtain information about
stillbirth and behavioural
risk factors.
▪  <50% of websites contained
information about stillbirth
▪  <30% of websites contained
information about risk factors for
stillbirth
▪  Only one website contained
all the information sought
about stillbirth ( e.g. definition,
prevalence, etc.) & risk factors.
Stage 1: Step 4
Stage 3: Step 8
S3:
“Facilitators and barriers to
substance-free pregnancies
in high-income countries:
A meta-synthesis of
qualitative research.” 39
“Facilitators and barriers
to seeking and engaging
with antenatal care in high-
income countries: A meta-
synthesis of qualitative
research.” 38
“Facilitators and barriers
influencing weight
management behaviours
during pregnancy: a meta-
synthesis of qualitative
research.” 34
Qualitative
evidence
synthesis
•  To assess the literature in
order to identify barriers
and facilitators to women’s
behaviour change
regarding attendance and
engaging with antenatal
care, substance use, and
weight management
behaviours from the
pregnant women’s
perspective.
Identified areas of concern:
▪  Health literacy, awareness of
risks & benefits
▪  Insufficient & overwhelming
sources of information
▪  Lack of opportunities & HCPs'
attitudes interfering with
communication & discussion
▪  Social influence of the
environment
▪  Social judgement, stigmatisation
of women.
    *A search to identify facilitators
and barriers influencing sleep
position was also conducted
at two different points in time
during this PhD, however,
no qualitative research was identified.
Stage 1: Steps 1, 2, 3, 4
Stage 2: Steps 5, 6
Stage 3: Steps 7, 8
“Exploring first time
mothers’ experiences
and knowledge about
behavioural risk factors for
stillbirth” 33
Qualitative
Study
To explore women’s
experiences of behaviour
change during pregnancy &
awareness regarding stillbirth
and associated risk factors.
▪  Behaviour change during
pregnancy perceived as easy and
natural.
▪  Women had high level of
awareness regarding health
advice, but very limited regarding
stillbirth.
▪  There is a lack of discussion with
HCPs about stillbirth & risks,
so women rely on their own
information-seeking behaviours.
▪  Women had a general positive
attitude towards receiving
information about stillbirth;
knowledge perceived as key.
Stage 1: Steps 1, 2, 3, 4
Stage 2: Steps 5, 6
Stage 3: Steps 7, 8
“A systematic review
of behaviour change
techniques used in
the context of stillbirth
prevention.” [Manuscript in
preparation]
Systematic
Review
To identify the behaviour
change techniques used to
date in stillbirth prevention
interventions.
▪  9 interventions were included in
analysis.
▪  The most common BCT used
was “Information about health
consequences”, followed
by “Adding objects to the
environment”.
▪  The maximum number of BCTs
was 11 and the minimum was 2.
Phase 1: Steps 3, 4
Phase 2: Steps 5, 6
Phase 3: Steps 7, 8
“Exploring healthcare
professionals’ experiences
when communicating with
pregnant women about
stillbirth.” [Manuscript in
preparation]
Online
survey study
To explore maternity
healthcare professionals
experience and knowledge
regarding stillbirth and
modifiable risk factors for
stillbirth.

To explore healthcare
professionals’ common
practices regarding
information provision about
stillbirth, risk factors and
health advice.

     To explore common
barriers to information
provision about stillbirth,
risk factors and health
advice.
▪  Only 50% of the surveyed
healthcare professionals (HCPs)
correctly identified the Irish
definition of stillbirth.
▪  Attendance at antenatal care
was perceived as the most
important risk factor to discuss
with pregnant women, followed
by smoking.
▪  Maternal weight was the risk
factor that HCPs found most
challenging to discuss with
women, and pregnant women
were perceived as being
reluctant to discuss it with HCPs.
▪  Time constraints were identified
as a major barrier to providing
education and supporting
behaviour change in pregnancy.
▪  While 65.2% of HCPs considered
informing women about health
behaviours and stillbirth risks as
part of their role, only 56.4% felt
confident and trained to do so.
▪  The study highlights the need
for prioritizing HCP education
and providing protected time to
discuss modifiable risk factors
during antenatal care to enhance
stillbirth preventive efforts.
Phase 1: Step 3, 4
Phase 2: Step 5
Phase 3: Steps 7, 8

Applying the Behaviour Change Wheel

Stage 1: Identification of behavioural barriers and facilitators to modify the behavioural risk factors for stillbirth during pregnancy. Stage 1 is informed by the first phase of the BCW, which requires a deep examination and understanding of the relevant behaviour/s. This involves defining the behaviour in terms of who, what, where, when, and how often 21 . In this case, the relevant behaviours are substance use, attendance and engaging with antenatal care, weight management behaviours (diet, physical activity) and sleep position. It is important that our approach takes into consideration all of the different behaviours, as interventions for these individual behaviours already exist. When it comes to behaviour change, our who are women, and when should be throughout pregnancy or the pre-conceptual period.

Following from the behavioural specifications of the behaviours, the facilitators and barriers identified in the studies will be extracted verbatim from the papers and coded using the components of the COM-B framework. The findings from this coding will then be synthesised narratively and using matrices and tables.

Stage 2: Identification of behavioural intervention strategies to promote behaviour change during pregnancy. We will use the BCW framework to identify and select intervention functions. The intervention functions are mapped into the elements of the COM-B model. Hence, the findings of Stage 1 will inform Stage 2 by mapping the identified behavioural components of the COM-B model into intervention functions. If multiple intervention functions are identified as relevant, the APEASE criteria will be used to prioritise the selection of the most affordable, practical, effective, acceptable, safe and equitable (APEASE).

During the process of intervention design and the application of the APEASE criteria, we will include stakeholder groups throughout. The stakeholder group should then involve health care professionals (HCPs), women from different sociodemographic backgrounds, as well as women who have used the currently available supports for behaviour change during pregnancy. Healthcare professionals and patient representatives will be identified from existing professional networks through the members of our research group, and by contacting the relevant support associations or using social media. The meetings will not include more than 15 members and no less than 10, with recruitment being focus on diversity and making sure all relevant groups are represented. The meetings will be held online. Before each meeting, all participants will receive a lay summary of the advancements made to date in the project, to ensure that everybody has the same level of awareness as to what is required of them in that meeting. In these sessions, considerations around the implementation and anticipated effectiveness of each intervention function and BCT previously identified will be discussed. These discussions will result in a ranking of the different intervention functions and BCTs by perceived importance. The application of the APEASE criteria will be conducted by two or more investigators independently, and support and input from the steering group will be then sought.

After identifying intervention functions, the next step will be to identify potential intervention content in terms of BCTs. To identify BCTs, the BCTTv1 will be used. Then, the relevant BCTs will be operationalised by translating them into a concrete application. The APEASE criteria and stakeholder input will also be utilised in this stage to prioritise the selection of BCTs.

Ethical considerations

The University College Cork (UCC) Code of Research conduct ethical approval and the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) procedures will be followed for all research activities. The first two stages do not involve any potential ethical concerns as they only involve utilising data obtain through the review of the literature or findings from studies that were granted ethical approval by the Cork Research Ethical Committee for the Cork Teaching Hospital in UCC when conducted.

For the creation and involvement of the stakeholder group, ethical approval will be sought from the same ethical committee. Potential participants will be provided with information leaflets making clear that participation is voluntary and that the meetings will be recorded for data collection. Written informed consent will be obtained to participate in the meetings. Participants will be informed that all data will be stored anonymously.

Study status

At the moment, the research team is completing stage 1 of this study and coding the data into the COM-B model as described in the stage one of the “Applying the Behaviour Change Wheel” section.

Conclusion

In summary, following this process will hopefully allow us to define the behaviours that need to be addressed, identify intervention functions, and identify BCTs. This process also will allow us to identify options to translate such BCTs into actual intervention content. Involving PPIs and stakeholders and utilising the APEASE criteria throughout the whole process will enhance the chances of the intervention to be acceptable and effective for its purpose. The following steps will then involve developing an implementation strategy for the designed intervention.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

References

  • 1. Frøen JF, Cacciatore J, McClure EM, et al. : Stillbirths: Why they matter. Lancet. 2011;377(9774):1353–1366. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62232-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. De Bernis L, Kinney MV, Stones W, et al. : Stillbirths: Ending preventable deaths by 2030. Lancet. 2016;387(10019):703–716. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00954-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Marufu TC, Ahankari A, Coleman T, et al. : Maternal smoking and the risk of still birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015;15: 239. 10.1186/s12889-015-1552-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Flenady V, Koopmans L, Middleton P, et al. : Major risk factors for stillbirth in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;377(9774):1331–1340. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62233-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Odendaal H, Dukes KA, Elliott AJ, et al. : Association of Prenatal Exposure to Maternal Drinking and Smoking with the Risk of Stillbirth. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8): e2121726. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.21726 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Varner MW, Silver RM, Hogue CJR, et al. : Association between stillbirth and illicit drug use and smoking during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):113–125. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Andersen AMN, Andersen PK, Olsen J, et al. : Moderate alcohol intake during pregnancy and risk of fetal death. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(2):405–413. 10.1093/ije/dyr189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Cornman-Homonoff J, Kuehn D, Aros S, et al. : Heavy prenatal alcohol exposure and risk of stillbirth and preterm delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(6):860–863. 10.3109/14767058.2011.587559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Chu SY, Kim SY, Lau J, et al. : Maternal obesity and risk of stillbirth: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(3):223–228. 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Yao R, Goetzinger K, Caughey A: Obesity and stillbirth: is there a dose-response effect?2018. 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.292 [DOI]
  • 11. Yao R, Ananth CV, Park BY, et al. : Obesity and the risk of stillbirth: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;10(5): 457.e1–457.e9. 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Stacey T, Thompson JMD, Mitchell EA, et al. : Antenatal care, identification of suboptimal fetal growth and risk of late stillbirth: Findings from the Auckland Stillbirth Study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(3):242–247. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01406.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Stacey T, Thompson JMD, Mitchell EA, et al. : The Auckland stillbirth study, a case-control study exploring modifiable risk factors for third trimester stillbirth: Methods and rationale. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51(1):3–8. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01254.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. O’Brien LM, Warland J, Stacey T, et al. : Maternal sleep practices and stillbirth: Findings from an international case-control study. Birth. 2019;46(2):344–354. 10.1111/birt.12416 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Chamberlain C, O'Mara-Eves A, Porter J, et al. : Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2): CD001055. 10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Gilinsky A, Swanson V, Power K: Interventions delivered during antenatal care to reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy: A systematic review. Addict Res Ther. 2011;19(3):235–250. 10.3109/16066359.2010.507894 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Currie S, Sinclair M, Murphy MH, et al. : Reducing the Decline in Physical Activity during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Interventions. PLoS One. 2013;8(6): e66385. 10.1371/journal.pone.0066385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, et al. : Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):323–344. 10.1080/17437199.2014.941722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Patey AM, Hurt CS, Grimshaw JM, et al. : Changing behaviour ’more or less’-do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1): 134. 10.1186/s13012-018-0826-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Michie S, van Stralen M, West R: The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6: 42. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Michie S, Atkins L, West R: The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. (Silverback Publishing.,) 2014;329. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. : A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1): 77. 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Rockliffe L, Peters S, Heazell AEP, et al. : Factors influencing health behaviour change during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Health Psychol Rev. 2021;15(4):613–632. 10.1080/17437199.2021.1938632 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Lange S, Probst C, Quere M, et al. : Alcohol use, smoking and their co-occurrence during pregnancy among Canadian women, 2003 to 2011/12. Addict Behav. 2015;50:102–9. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Meader N, King K, Moe-Byrne T, et al. : A systematic review on the clustering and co-occurrence of multiple risk behaviours. BMC Public Health. 2016;16: 57. 10.1186/s12889-016-3373-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Rockliffe L, Peters S, Heazell AEP, et al. : Understanding pregnancy as a teachable moment for behaviour change: a comparison of the COM-B and teachable moments models. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2022;10(1):41–59. 10.1080/21642850.2021.2014851 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Gould GS, Bar-Zeev Y, Bovill M, et al. : Designing an implementation intervention with the Behaviour Change Wheel for health provider smoking cessation care for Australian Indigenous pregnant women. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1): 114. 10.1186/s13012-017-0645-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Smith R, Michalopoulou M, Reid H, et al. : Applying the behaviour change wheel to develop a smartphone application ‘stay-active’ to increase physical activity in women with gestational diabetes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1): 253. 10.1186/s12884-022-04539-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Smith R, Kenworthy Y, Astbury NM, et al. : Study protocol: use of a smartphone application to support the implementation of a complex physical activity intervention (+ Stay Active) in women with gestational diabetes mellitus-protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9): e062525. 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Template P: Date and version No: 20/02/2014, Version 1.2014;1–22.
  • 31. Andrews CJ, Ellwood D, Middleton PF, et al. : Implementation and evaluation of a quality improvement initiative to reduce late gestation stillbirths in Australia: Safer Baby Bundle study protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1): 694. 10.1186/s12884-020-03401-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. NHS England: Saving Babies’ Lives Version Two. 2019. Reference Source
  • 33. Escañuela Sánchez T, Matvienko‐Sikar K, Meaney S, et al. : Exploring first time mothers’ experiences and knowledge about behavioural risk factors for stillbirth. Health Expect. 2022;26(1):329–342. 10.1111/hex.13662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Escañuela Sánchez T, Meaney S, O'Connor C, et al. : Facilitators and barriers influencing weight management behaviours during pregnancy: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1): 682. 10.1186/s12884-022-04929-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Escañuela Sánchez T, Meaney S, O’Donoghue K: Modifiable risk factors for stillbirth: a literature review. Midwifery. 2019;79: 102539. 10.1016/j.midw.2019.102539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Escañuela Sánchez T, Byrne M, Meaney S, et al. : A protocol for a systematic review of behaviour change techniques used in the context of stillbirth prevention [version 1 ; peer review : 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res. 2021;4: 92. 10.12688/hrbopenres.13375.2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Escañuela Sánchez T, Meaney S, O’Donoghue K: Stillbirth and risk factors : an evaluation of Irish and UK websites. J Commun Healthc. 2020;14(1):68–77. 10.1080/17538068.2020.1807887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Escañuela Sánchez T, Linehan L, O’Donoghue K, et al. : Facilitators and barriers to seeking and engaging with antenatal care in high‐income countries: A meta‐synthesis of qualitative research. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(6):e3810–e3828. 10.1111/hsc.14072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Escañuela Sánchez T, Matvienko-Sikar K, Linehan L, et al. : Facilitators and barriers to substance-free pregnancies in high-income countries: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Women Birth. 2022;35(2):e99–e110. 10.1016/j.wombi.2021.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
HRB Open Res. 2025 Jan 2. doi: 10.21956/hrbopenres.15042.r43571

Reviewer response for version 1

Sarah Saleem 1

This is a study protocol whichis related to development of an intervention to change behaviour in relation to prevention of Stillbirths. The authors have identified modifiable risk facors through eight studies and developing an intervention in an holistic manner using COM-b model and behaviour change wheel systematic framework. The study will also involve stakeholders to obtain input through the process of the design of the intervention. The interventions will be implemented in high risk populations

Very clearly written protocol, which is addressing an important aspect of stillbirth occurrence.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

medical Doctor, Epidemiology, maternal and Newborn health, stillbirths, family planning

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

HRB Open Res. 2024 Dec 12. doi: 10.21956/hrbopenres.15042.r43570

Reviewer response for version 1

Philippa Middleton 1

Abstract:

Methods: I'm not sure that 'mode of delivery' fits here. 

Methods: Line 4: suggest deleting 'multiple" here

Introduction:

Line 1: suggest deleting "Although not all"..

Para 2: change 'Mitchie" to "Michie"

Para 3: rephrase "no environmental constraints..."

Para 3: suggest adding some more clarification about reflexive/automatic motivation (or omitting here and adding it to main text instead).

As parts of the manuscript seem very similar to the authors' 2021 paper (ref 36), I suggest removing any unnecessary duplication.

I also wonder if Table 1 is necessary.

ref 30: this does not look complete; also the next sentence does not seem necessary.

Last paragraph in the introduction is not needed.  

Refs 33-39 are all self-cites - suggest some, if not all, be removed

APEASE is not defined or explained.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

stillbirth, preterm birth, nutrition, implementation, guidelines

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

HRB Open Res. 2023 Oct 11. doi: 10.21956/hrbopenres.15042.r36309

Reviewer response for version 1

Tomasina Stacey 1

This paper by Sanchez et al sets out the protocol for an intervention to address behavioural risk factors for stillbirth. The proposed development of an intervention to promote behaviour change  builds on the excellent work already conducted by the study team. Clear rationale and justification for the research is provided. They have used the COM-B model to inform the framing of their intervention – this provides a useful theoretical grounding.

The only concern that I have is that the behaviours identified (smoking, alcohol consumption, illicit drug use, high maternal weight, antenatal care attendance and sleep position) are very diverse and are likely to require different strategies to address them, they also may require the targeting of specific (and varying) population groups. There is some strength in combining these factors, but also a risk that by doing so none will be addressed adequately- although this issue is touched upon, it is not fully explored in this short paper.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Modifiable risk for stillbirth

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    No data are associated with this article.


    Articles from HRB Open Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research Board Ireland

    RESOURCES