Trial reportPloS one2025
Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial aimed at improving health behaviours and vitamin D status during pregnancy: Implementation of the SPRING trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Southampton PRegnancy Intervention for the Next Generation (SPRING) aimed to assess the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation and the behaviour change intervention 'Healthy Conversation Skills' (HCS) in improving the nutritional status of pregnant women. This paper describes the implementation of these interventions. Efficacy of HCS in improving diet quality and physical activity was evaluated in subgroups of women who discussed ways to improve these behaviours.
methodsIn total, 717 pregnant women were recruited from a maternity hospital in Southampton, England. Quantitative data were collected using questionnaires, case report forms, and audio recordings. Following Medical Research Council guidance, fidelity, dose, and reach were evaluated descriptively. Multiple linear regression models were produced for subgroup analyses.
resultsResearch nurses demonstrated high competence in using HCS. Compliance with intervention protocols for delivering and receiving both interventions was high. Participants took a median of 96% of the supplements and most women (85%) attended all four Healthy Conversations sessions. Women of lower socioeconomic status and from ethnic minorities were under-represented amongst participants. Findings were not sufficient to suggest an effect of HCS on diet quality among those who discussed diet but indicated a marginally beneficial effect on physical activity among those who discussed physical activity. Results suggested a weak dose-dependent effect, with the most pronounced difference in physical activity between the control group and the intervention sub-group with the highest exposure (adjusted difference 0.16 SD (95%-CI -0.03; 0.34)).
conclusionThis process evaluation confirms that the intervention components were delivered with high fidelity and rates of compliance. Altering dietary behaviours proved more challenging than altering physical activity behaviours. Research is needed to explore barriers to healthy eating faced by women during pregnancy and how these can be overcome. This paper also highlights the difficulty of engaging people from ethnic minorities and disadvantaged backgrounds in research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.