A new screening technology in maternity care for identifying dysfunction of the placenta
More details
Hide details
Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Centaflow A/S, Søborg, Denmark
Department of Social Science and Women’s Health and Midwifery, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Publication date: 2023-10-24
Corresponding author
Lisa S Wienecke   

Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Eur J Midwifery 2023;7(Supplement 1):A71
Fetal growth restriction (FGR), defined as a birthweight under the 3rd centile1, is the major cause of stillbirth as well as infant mortality and morbidity2-6. FGR is highly associated with dysfunction of placenta during pregnancy. Centaflow A/S has developed a new and groundbreaking technology for identifying abnormal functions of placenta and FGR – the Centaflow biocensor (CB). The technology is developed to be used by midwives in the pregnancy care system to improve identification of FGR. No new technology has been implemented for decades in the Danish pregnancy care system. And it is well known that implementation of new technology in health care and among midwives is often complicated and many implementations fail to succeed7-11. Implementation of new technology has a high level of complexity due to many stakeholders and a complex setting12,13. Therefore, it is essential to involve stakeholders in the process of implementation14,15. Some stakeholders for CB are midwives, pregnant women, and their partners. The overall objective of this industrial PhD project is to contribute with new knowledge that will improve the clinical detection of placentas with dysfunction, FGR and reduce stillbirth, neonatal mortality, and short and long-term morbidity of FGR infants and to filling important knowledge gaps regarding implementation of technologies in health systems in general and how service innovation can be achieved - leading to better and safer care and improved health. Specifically, this study aims to identify drivers and barriers for implementation of new technology in midwifery consultations and explore how implementation activities are adapted and interact with the contextual factors of the different settings. It will address three research questions through three sub-studies: 1) A case study: The implementation process of the Centaflow screening technology and the new paradigm for finding dysfunctional placentas and FGR within different pregnancy care settings using the “nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability” (NASSS) framework developed to improve implementation and innovation in the health sector16-18. 2) Qualitative focus group interviews: Midwives’ attitudes towards and experiences of the Centaflow screening technology and the change in paradigm. 3) Qualitative interviews: Pregnant women’s assessment of the Centaflow screening technology and how it affects their experience of and attitudes towards the midwifery consult as well as sense of security throughout pregnancy. The PhD project will develop scientific, evidence-based strategies for implementation of the new approach to screening for FGR in Denmark with a high level of stakeholder involvement.
Being an industrial PhD, Lisa Wienecke is employed by the Centaflow A/S company inventing the technology in focus. The remaining authors (JS and CO) declare no conflicts of interest.
The PhD is funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark,
Andreasen LA, Tabor A, Nørgaard LN, Taksøe‐Vester CA, Krebs L, Jørgensen FS, et al. Why we succeed and fail in detecting fetal growth restriction: A population‐based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021;100(5):893-899. doi:10.1111/aogs.14048
Nicolaides KH, Papastefanou I, Syngelaki A, Ashoor G, Akolekar R. Predictive performance for placental dysfunction related stillbirth of the competing risks model for small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2022;129(9):1530-1537. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17066
Madden JV, Flatley CJ, Kumar S. Term small-for-gestational-age infants from low-risk women are at significantly greater risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2018;218(5):525.e1-525.e9 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.02.008
Malhotra A, Allison BJ, Castillo-Melendez M, Jenkin G, Polglase GR, Miller SL. Neonatal Morbidities of Fetal Growth Restriction: Pathophysiology and Impact. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:55. doi:10.3389/fendo.2019.00055
Kamphof HD, Posthuma S, Gordijn SJ, Ganzevoort W. Fetal Growth Restriction: Mechanisms, Epidemiology, and Management. Maternal-fetal medicine (Online). 2022;4(3):186-196. doi:10.1097/FM9.0000000000000161
Hirst JE, Villar J, Victora CG, et al. The antepartum stillbirth syndrome: risk factors and pregnancy conditions identified from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. BJOG. 2018;125(9):1145-1153. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14463
Guldbrandsson K. From news to everyday use: the difficult art of implementation. Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Östersund R; 2008(9)
Fixsen DL. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida; 2005
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
Benton M, Salter A, Simpson B, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. A qualitative study of a sample of women participating in an Australian randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal surveillance. Midwifery. 2020;83:102655. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2020.102655
Farrell R, Collart C, Craighead C, et al. The Successes and Challenges of Implementing Telehealth for Diverse Patient Populations Requiring Prenatal Care During COVID-19: Qualitative Study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(3):e32791. doi:10.2196/32791
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2061
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. doi:10.1136/bmj.h1258
Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O'Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):60. doi:10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6
Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, et al. Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:42. doi:10.1186/s43058-020-00023-7
Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, et al. Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367. doi:10.2196/jmir.8775
Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, et al. The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(5):e16861. doi:10.2196/16861
Greenhalgh T, Abimbola S. The NASSS Framework - A Synthesis of Multiple Theories of Technology Implementation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;263:193-204. doi:10.3233/SHTI190123
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top