Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2017 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2017 Open Access

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017

A pilot study to understand feasibility and acceptability of stool and cord blood sample collection for a large-scale longitudinal birth cohort

Zeitschrift:
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth > Ausgabe 1/2017
Autoren:
S. R. Bailey, C. L. Townsend, H. Dent, C. Mallet, E. Tsaliki, E. M. Riley, M. Noursadeghi, T. D. Lawley, A. J. Rodger, P. Brocklehurst, N. Field
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.​1186/​s12884-017-1627-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Abbreviations
ANOVA
Analysis of variance
NHS
National Health Service
UCLH
University College London Hospital

Background

Large-scale cohort studies increasingly collect biological samples which, combined with survey data, might provide valuable insights into the biological mechanisms of disease [14]. Storage of samples in large long-term bioarchives has become common, with the aim of using both current and anticipated future molecular technologies to analyse the samples [5, 6]. Reductions in costs of molecular testing, in particular for genomics, proteomics and metabolomics applications, have made such approaches attractive to public health researchers [2, 7]. However, collecting such samples poses multiple challenges, including how to ensure that the proportion of participants providing samples is sufficiently high, and practical challenges associated with working in clinical settings where medical considerations often take priority over research [8, 9].
We are designing a new large-scale UK birth cohort study to investigate how exposure to microorganisms and immunological events during pregnancy and early life influence health and disease outcomes across the life course [10].
We undertook the experimental pilot study described here to: (1) inform decisions about methodology for the main study, (2) develop experience about the practicalities and logistical challenges of collecting samples, and (3) gain understanding of the acceptability of sample collection to women in the late stages of pregnancy and around the time of delivery.

Methods

Study design

We aimed to collect samples from approximately 100 women around the time of delivery at University College London Hospital (UCLH). Women were recruited between 17th February 2014 and 4th July 2014 by two research midwives, working normal office hours (9 am to 5 pm). All pregnant women with singleton pregnancies attending either a prolonged pregnancy clinic (gestation 41+5 or 6) or a planned pre-labour caesarean section clinic up to a week prior to expected delivery were eligible. We selected these groups as containing women who attend outpatient appointments and who might therefore be approached by study midwives in the week prior to labour to discuss the study. Women with multiple pregnancies, those who needed a translator to consent to participate, those under 16 years of age and non-UK residents who intended to return abroad immediately after delivery were excluded.
We aimed for a sample size of 100 participants to estimate with reasonable precision the proportion returning each of the sample types. The study was not designed or powered to detect differences by subgroups.

Sample collection

Cord blood and stool were chosen for collection as these samples were subject to the greatest uncertainty regarding the optimum processes required for collection, as well as acceptability to women. Study protocols developed as a result of this pilot study are available in Additional file 1.
Cord blood was collected in the maternity unit soon after delivery by a research midwife or by the attending midwife if the delivery occurred outside normal office hours. Cord blood banking was available at UCLH for those women who wanted to donate cord blood and this service was given precedence where women agreed to both.
Women were asked to provide a stool sample in the maternity unit before or after delivery, or stool was collected during delivery by midwives. The first baby stool sample (meconium) was collected while the baby remained in hospital. For a subset of ten women recruited in May and June 2014, an additional baby stool collection protocol was established and tested for home collection of stool every other day after birth: samples were taken by women and collected from their home by courier. These samples were used for experimental validation of our procedures. After home collection of baby stool commenced, women not enrolled in home collection were only asked to consent to collection of cord blood and maternal stool. Home collection of baby stool ended on 9th June 2014, after which all collection of maternal stool and baby stool collection stopped; only cord blood was collected from this date until the end of the study (4th July 2014). We were not able to collect reasons for failing to get a sample.

Questionnaires

Women were asked to self-complete paper-based questionnaires before (all women) and after (only women who provided samples) sample collection to assess the acceptability of collecting samples in this pilot as well as the acceptability of additional samples planned for the main study (maternal and baby urine, vaginal swabs, placental tissue and baby saliva). The pre-sample and post-sample questionnaires are available in Additional files 2 and 3, respectively.
Women were asked for their opinions about and satisfaction with the study overall as well as about the acceptability of providing each sample using a five point Likert scale (“very satisfied / comfortable” to “very unsatisfied / uncomfortable”). Women could also provide free-text comments.

Data analysis

Comparisons were made between women who did and not provide at least one sample. Comparisons were also made by sample type for women who provided at least one sample. For maternal stool, the denominator for these analyses included only those women who were approached to provide a stool sample (n = 85).
Comparisons of continuous variables, such as maternal age, were made using Student’s t-tests. Categorical variables were compared using either Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests. Means across groups were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). All analyses were carried out using STATA version 12.0.

Results

Of 265 women approached, 171 (65%) of women consented to participate and 113 (66%) of these women gave at least one sample (Fig. 1). Seventeen women consented to participate but did not provide any samples or complete a pre-sample questionnaire.
The mean age of women who consented to participate was 34 years. Women were primarily of white ethnicity (130/166, 78%) and half were nulliparous (86/169, 51%) (Table 1). Among 168 women where mode of delivery was recorded, 57% delivered vaginally (unassisted or instrumental), nearly one third (29%) by planned pre-labour caesarean section, and 15% by intrapartum caesarean section. For 140 women who consented to participate and where information on day and time of birth were recorded, approximately half delivered outside of normal office hours (75/140, 54%).
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of women who consented to participate, and the proportion providing ≥1 sample
 
All
Sample given
P-value
Characteristic
n
%
n
%
 
Woman’s ethnicitya
 White
130
78
85
65
 
 Asian
12
7
8
67
 
 Black
14
8
11
79
 
 Mixed/Chinese/other
10
6
5
50
 
 Total
166
109
0.56
Paritya
 0
86
51
57
66
 
 1
63
37
42
67
 
 >1
20
12
14
70
 
 Total
169
 
1.00
Mode of deliverya
 Vaginal
95
57
51
54
 
  Unassisted
70
42
35
50
 
  Forceps
15
9
11
73
 
  Ventouse
10
6
5
50
 
 Planned pre-labour caesarean
48
29
47
98
 
 Intrapartum caesarean
25
15
15
60
 
 Total
168
113
< 0.001
Woman given antibiotics at any timea
 Yes
68
 
59
87
 
 No
39
 
33
85
 
 Total
107
 
92
0.76
Infant given antibioticsa
 Yes
12
 
11
92
 
 No
117
 
91
78
 
 Total
129
 
102
0.26
aIn participants where data were available
Women who delivered by planned pre-labour caesarean section were most likely to provide at least one sample (98%) and those delivering by unassisted spontaneous vaginal (50%) or ventouse were least likely (50%) to provide a sample (Table 1). In 110 women who provided at least one sample and where information on day and time of birth were recorded, 47% (52/110) delivered outside of normal office hours. We observed no significant difference between whether a sample was given and maternal age (p = 0.09, continuous variable), ethnicity (p = 0.56) or parity (p = 1.00), although we note the relatively small sample size in this pilot study, which may have been underpowered to detect any difference.
Of the 113 women from whom at least one sample was collected, maternal stool was the least frequently collected sample (26/85, 31%), while cord blood collection was most frequently collected (89/113, 78%). Midwives stopped collecting baby meconium after 6th May 2014 because this sample was found to contain no bacterial nucleic acid signature. Up to this date, 45 out of 70 women (64%) had provided a meconium sample from their baby.
Whether a maternal stool sample was collected was associated with delivery mode (p = 0.01) (Table 2). Maternal stool samples were more likely to be given by women who delivered by spontaneous vaginal delivery (14/29) and least likely to be given by women who had planned pre-labour caesarean sections (3/31) (Table 2).
Table 2
Association between demographic characteristics and sample collection for women who provided ≥1 sample
Characteristic
Total who gave any sample
Cord blood given
P-value
Total asked to provide any stool sampleb
Maternal stool given
P-value
n
%
 
n
%
 
Woman’s ethnicitya
 White
85
66
78
 
65
21
  
 Asian
8
5
63
 
5
2
  
 Black
11
10
91
 
8
1
  
 Mixed/ Chinese/other
5
5
100
 
4
1
  
 Total
109
86
0.37
84
25
0.77
Paritya
 0
57
44
77
 
45
13
  
 1
42
32
76
 
32
11
  
 >1
14
13
93
 
9
2
  
 Total
113
89
0.47
85
26
0.74
Mode of deliverya
 Vaginal
  Unassisted
35
25
71
 
29
14
48
 
  Forceps
11
7
64
 
9
4
44
 
  Ventouse
5
3
60
 
5
1
20
 
 Planned pre-labour caesarean
47
42
89
 
31
3
10
 
 Intrapartum caesarean
15
12
80
 
11
4
36
 
 Total
113
89
0.09
85
26
0.01
aIn participants where data were available
bA total of 85 women were asked to provide maternal stool
We observed no evidence of an association between collection of cord blood and any of the demographic characteristics measured (Table 2). The overall mean volume of blood collected was 12.6 ml (range: 1 to 40 ml), and this was not associated with either mode of delivery (p = 0.10: one way ANOVA).
One hundred and ten of 171 (64%) women who agreed to take part in the study completed a pre-sample questionnaire, including 41 women who did not provide a sample (Fig. 1). Over 95% of women reported that they were satisfied with the explanation about the study, why samples needed to be collected, and what taking part involved (105/110, 95%; 108/110, 98%; and 110/110, 100%, respectively). Women generally felt comfortable about samples being collected from their baby (Table 3). Most women (67%) also reported being comfortable or very comfortable with giving their own stool sample (Table 3). Fewer women felt comfortable about giving a vaginal swab (53%) (Table 3).
Table 3
Pre- and post-sample responses to the question, ‘Overall, how comfortable do you feel with the idea of providing the following samples?’
 
Pre-sample
Post-sample
Sample
n
%
n
%
Maternal stool
 Very comfortable / comfortable
72
67
27
57
 Neither
16
15
3
6
 Uncomfortable / very uncomfortable
19
18
17
36
 Total
107
 
47
 
Maternal urine
 Very comfortable / comfortable
96
97
41
93
 Neither
2
2
2
5
 Uncomfortable/Very uncomfortable
1
1
1
2
 Total
99
 
44
 
Maternal vaginal swab
 Very comfortable / comfortable
52
53
26
59
 Neither
22
22
7
16
 Uncomfortable / very uncomfortable
24
25
11
25
 Total
98
 
44
 
Cord blood
 Very comfortable / comfortable
97
87
47
96
 Neither
7
7
2
4
 Uncomfortable / very uncomfortable
7
7
0
0
 Total
108
 
49
 
Stool from baby’s nappy
 Very comfortable / comfortable
100
93
43
92
 Neither
3
3
3
6
 Uncomfortable / very uncomfortable
5
5
1
2
 Total
108
 
47
 
Urine from baby’s nappy
 Very comfortable / comfortable
91
93
 Neither
4
4
 Uncomfortable / very uncomfortable
3
3
 Total
98
 
Saliva from baby’s mouth
 Very comfortable / comfortable
82
84
 Neither
7
7
 Uncomfortable / very uncomfortable
9
9
 Total
98
 
34 women responded to both questionnaires
Forty-nine of the 113 (43%) women who gave at least one sample returned a post-sample questionnaire. Overall satisfaction with study explanations was very similar to the pre-sample questionnaires (data not shown), and most women reported that they were comfortable with sample collection in the post-sample questionnaire (Table 3).
Free text feedback was provided by 64 women. Several women reported feeling uncomfortable about the idea of having a vaginal swab collected, which they felt might be invasive and painful. Eleven women (17%) reported feeling uncomfortable about providing their own stool due to embarrassment and because this is not a routine procedure (in contrast to collection of urine). Seven women (11%) raised concerns about posting baby stool samples due to the demands of caring for a newborn baby.

Discussion

This study provides evidence about biological sample collection rates from women in late pregnancy, at around the time of delivery and from their babies, and provides insight into whether or not women feel comfortable with sample collection. Overall, sample collection success was good, with 66% (113/171) of women recruited providing at least one sample and most reporting that they found the study acceptable.
In general, samples were more likely to be provided when delivery was by planned pre-labour caesarean section (except maternal stool), probably because pre-labour caesarean sections were easier to plan and prepare for, as the time of delivery was known in advance. The Monday to Friday working pattern of the study’s research midwives may also have impacted on sample collection success; 54% of women who consented to participate delivered outside of normal office hours. A major constraint on sample collection may therefore have been this practical issue rather than a lack of willingness from women having vaginal deliveries. This is reflected in both the percent of those approached who consented to participate (171/265, 65%) and in generally high levels of acceptability for most samples in responses to pre-sample questionnaires.
The collection rate for maternal stool samples was low at 31%. This may have been due in part to our deliberate selection of women who delivered by planned pre-labour caesarean section, from whom fewer stool samples were collected, probably because passing of stool during C-section delivery is unlikely. Since fewer deliveries would be by caesarean section in a population-based study [9], we anticipate that maternal stool sample collection may be higher in our main study.
It was encouraging that the proportion of women from whom cord blood was collected was high (79%), despite the fact that cord blood banking was given precedence over our own sample collection. In the absence of cord blood banking, samples could potentially be collected from a higher number of participants, and/or larger volumes obtained.
Overall, the study and procedures were acceptable to most participants, with particularly high acceptability of collection of maternal and baby urine, baby stool and cord blood. We were surprised that the collection of vaginal swabs was perceived to be painful to collect or too invasive because such swabs have been shown to be highly acceptable in other settings such as sexual health clinics and for cervical smear screening [11, 12]. Such concerns may be alleviated by enabling self-collection and providing more information about what the procedures involve.
A limitation of this study is that it was carried out in specific late pregnancy clinics in a central London teaching hospital, and the women recruited might therefore not be representative of pregnant women in the general population. Moreover, some selection bias is possible, with those women who participated being more likely to find the study acceptable. For a small number of participants, some data items were missing. Due to the scale of this pilot we were not able to include women who needed a translator to understand the study materials. For women who consented to take part but did not provide a samples, we were unable to determine whether this was because their changed their minds or because they lacked an opportunity to provide the sample.
Our pilot found similar or somewhat better cord blood collection rates than other studies. For example, a pilot study for the ELFE longitudinal cohort in France reported cord blood collection for 82% of participating mothers, which was similar to our study, [13] whereas a feasibility study in Germany reported cord blood collection for 54% of women who consented [6]. Few gut microbiota studies report response rates or information about acceptability of stool collection, and most to date have been small in scale [14, 15]. Where reported, stool sample response rates have varied considerably between studies. For example, the Canadian CHILD study reported 3-month and 1-year stool samples collected at home by visiting nurses were available for 33% (422/1264) babies, [16] while stool samples collected from children aged 1–11 months were available for 24% of participants in the American WHEAL cohort study, [17] and a feasibility study in Germany in 75 1- to 3-year-old children reported stool sample for 65.3% of participants [9]. Overall, we found few examples in the literature of dedicated studies describing the acceptability, responses rates and challenges when collecting cord blood and stool from mothers and babies around the time of birth, which emphasises the importance of the data reported here.

Conclusions

Overall, our study indicates that it is acceptable and possible to collect biological samples from pregnant women in a clinical setting using research midwives and routine National Health Service (NHS) staff, which has important implications for study design and protocol development for large-scale birth cohorts collecting biological samples around the time of birth. The major constraints to sample collection are likely to be logistical rather than related to acceptability and willingness to participate.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the study participants and staff at University College London Hospital for their time and contribution to the study.

Funding

This pilot study was funded by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award to University College London (UCL), grant number WT101169MA. NF was funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lectureship.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is not being made publically available to avoid potential deductive disclosure because the data are from a defined time period at one named hospital with small numbers of patients.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the London City and East Research Ethics Committee (REC number 12/LO/1492). Participants provided written consent to take part in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: Baby Biome Study Collection and processing protocol: samples at birth. (PDF 2102 kb)
12884_2017_1627_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Additional file 2: Pre-birth questionnaire, pilot study questionnaire given to all women who consented to participate prior to sample collection. (PDF 368 kb)
12884_2017_1627_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Additional file 3: Post-birth questionnaire, pilot study questionnaire given to all women who gave at least one sample. (PDF 357 kb)
12884_2017_1627_MOESM3_ESM.pdf
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet

2014 | Buch

Perikonzeptionelle Frauenheilkunde

Fertilitätserhalt, Prävention und Management von Schwangerschaftsrisiken

Ein Praxisbuch für alle, die in der Beratung und Betreuung von Schwangeren und Paaren mit Kinderwunsch tätig sind. Die Herausgeber und Autoren haben alle wichtigen Informationen zusammengetragen, um Frauen sicher zu beraten, zu betreuen und kompetent Verantwortung zu übernehmen.

Herausgeber:
Christian Gnoth, Peter Mallmann

2019 | Buch

Praxisbuch Gynäkologische Onkologie

Dieses kompakte und praxisrelevante Standardwerk richtet sich alle Ärzte in Klinik und Praxis, die Patientinnen mit bösartigen Tumoren des Genitales und der Mamma behandeln. Die 5. Auflage wurde komplett aktualisiert und auf der Basis …

Herausgeber:
Prof. Dr. Edgar Petru, Dr. Daniel Fink, Prof. Dr. Ossi R. Köchli, Prof. Dr. Sibylle Loibl

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Gynäkologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise