Jessop Wing

Sheffield, United Kingdom

Jessop Wing

Sheffield, United Kingdom

Time filter

Source Type

Wong H.S.,Imperial College London | Santhakumaran S.,Imperial College London | Statnikov Y.,Imperial College London | Gray D.,Imperial College London | And 138 more authors.
Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition | Year: 2014

Objectives: To report on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening compliance against a national guideline, factors associated with non-compliance and effect on ROP treatment. Design: National cohort study using operational NHS data from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) for the period 2009-2011. Setting: 161 (94%) neonatal units in England. Population: Infants born below 32 weeks' gestation and/or with a birth weight below 1501 g. Main outcome measures: ROP screening status ('on-time', 'early', 'late', 'unknown') and associated infant and neonatal unit characteristics, ROP treatment. Results: The proportion of infants screened on-time increased over the study period (p<0.001). Of 19 821 eligible infants, 7602 (38.4%) were recorded to have received ROP screening in accordance with the national guideline; 7474 (37.8%) received screening outside the recommended time period; data were missing for 4745 (16.7%) infants. For 16 411 infants in neonatal care during the recommended screening period, late screening was significantly associated with lower gestational age (relative risk ratio (RRR) (95% credible interval) for late versus on-time screening 0.83 (0.80 to 0.86) for each increased week of gestation) and care in a neonatal unit providing less than 500 days of intensive care per annum (2.48 (0.99 to 4.99)). Infants screened late were almost 40% more likely to receive ROP treatment (OR (95% CI) 1.36 (1.05 to 1.76)). Conclusions: Understanding organisational differences between neonatal units may help improve ROP screening. Patient-level electronic NHS clinical data offer opportunity for future rapid, low cost, population-based evaluations but require improved data entry.


Coughlan C.,Jessop Wing | Walters S.,University of Sheffield | Ledger W.,University of New South Wales | Li T.C.,Jessop Wing
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Year: 2014

Objective To determine whether women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after in vitro fertilization (IVF), similar to women with recurrent pregnancy loss, have significantly higher stress levels than women without reproductive failure, and to compare stress levels between women with RIF and women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Methods In a questionnaire-based study between September 2009 and January 2011, psychological stress was measured among patients attending recurrent pregnancy loss and RIF clinics at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK. Participants completed the Fertility Problem Inventory (FPI), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) on their first visit to their respective clinic. Thirty fertile control women also completed the 3 validated questionnaires. Results Compared with the control group, women with RIF and recurrent pregnancy loss had significantly higher scores in the FPI (RIF, P < 0.001; recurrent pregnancy loss, P = 0.003) and the PANAS negative affect domain (RIF, P = 0.004; recurrent pregnancy loss, P = 0.001), and lower scores in the PANAS positive affect domain (RIF, P < 0.001; recurrent pregnancy loss, P < 0.001). Whereas the perceived stress score (PSS) of the recurrent pregnancy loss group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P = 0.006), the score of the RIF group was not, although the difference tended toward statistical significance (P = 0.058). Conclusion The study findings confirm the stressful nature of RIF and recurrent pregnancy loss. © 2013 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.


PubMed | University of Sheffield, Jessop Wing and University of New South Wales
Type: Comparative Study | Journal: International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics | Year: 2014

To determine whether women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after in vitro fertilization (IVF), similar to women with recurrent pregnancy loss, have significantly higher stress levels than women without reproductive failure, and to compare stress levels between women with RIF and women with recurrent pregnancy loss.In a questionnaire-based study between September 2009 and January 2011, psychological stress was measured among patients attending recurrent pregnancy loss and RIF clinics at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK. Participants completed the Fertility Problem Inventory (FPI), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) on their first visit to their respective clinic. Thirty fertile control women also completed the 3 validated questionnaires.Compared with the control group, women with RIF and recurrent pregnancy loss had significantly higher scores in the FPI (RIF, P<0.001; recurrent pregnancy loss, P=0.003) and the PANAS negative affect domain (RIF, P=0.004; recurrent pregnancy loss, P=0.001), and lower scores in the PANAS positive affect domain (RIF, P<0.001; recurrent pregnancy loss, P<0.001). Whereas the perceived stress score (PSS) of the recurrent pregnancy loss group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P=0.006), the score of the RIF group was not, although the difference tended toward statistical significance (P=0.058).The study findings confirm the stressful nature of RIF and recurrent pregnancy loss.

Loading Jessop Wing collaborators
Loading Jessop Wing collaborators