METHODS: Nine hospitals in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand participated in SEA-ORCHID. These hospitals were supported by researchers from three Australian centres. Health care practices and outcomes were assessed for 1000 women at each hospital both before and after the intervention. The capacity development intervention was tailored to the needs and context of each hospital and delivered over an 18 month period. Main outcomes included adherence to forms of care likely to be beneficial and avoidance of forms of care likely to be ineffective or harmful.

RESULTS: We observed substantial variation in clinical practice change between sites. The capacity development intervention had a positive impact on some care practices across all countries, including increased family support during labour and decreased perineal shaving before birth, but in some areas there was no significant change in practice and a few beneficial practices were followed less often.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We completed an audit of 9550 medical records of women and their 9665 infants at nine hospitals; two in each of Indonesia, Malaysia and The Philippines, and three in Thailand between January-December 2005. We compared actual clinical practices with best practice recommendations selected from the Cochrane Library and the World Health Organization Reproductive Health Library. Evidence-based components of the active management of the third stage of labour and appropriately treating eclampsia with magnesium sulphate were universally practiced in all hospitals. Appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section, a beneficial form of care, was practiced in less than 5% of cases in most hospitals. Use of the unnecessary practices of enema in labour ranged from 1% to 61% and rates of episiotomy for vaginal birth ranged from 31% to 95%. Other appropriate practices were commonly performed to varying degrees between countries and also between hospitals within the same country.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antenatal breastfeeding (BF) education for increasing BF initiation and duration.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register on 1 March 2016, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 March 2016) and Scopus (January 1985 to 1 March 2016). We contacted experts and searched reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of formal antenatal BF education or comparing two different methods of formal antenatal BF education, on the duration of BF. We included RCTs that only included antenatal interventions and excluded those that combined antenatal and intrapartum or postpartum BF education components. Cluster-randomised trials were included in this review. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all potential studies identified as a result of the search strategy. Two review authors extracted data from each included study using the agreed form and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes 24 studies (10,056 women). Twenty studies (9789 women) contribute data to analyses. Most studies took place in high-income countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia. In the first five comparisons, we display the included trials according to type of intervention without pooling data. For the 'Summary of findings' we pooled data for a summary effect.Five included studies were cluster-randomised trials: all of these adjusted data and reported adjustments as odds ratios (OR). We have analysed the data using the generic inverse variance method and presented results as odds ratios, because we were unable to derive a cluster-adjusted risk ratio from the published cluster-trial. We acknowledge that the use of odds ratio prevents the pooling of these cluster trials in our main analyses. One method of BF education with standard (routine) careThere were no group differences for duration of any BF in days or weeks. There was no evidence that interventions improved the proportion of women with any BF or exclusive BF at three or six months. Single trials of different interventions were unable to show that education improved initiation of BF, apart from one small trial at high risk of attrition bias. Many trial results marginally favoured the intervention but had wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. BF complications such as mastitis and other BF problems were similar in treatment arms in single trials reporting these outcomes. Multiple methods of BF education versus standard careFor all trials included in this comparison we have presented the cluster-adjusted odds ratios as reported in trial publications. One three-arm study found the intervention of BF booklet plus video plus Lactation Consultant versus standard care improved the proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.40; women = 159) and marginally at six months (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.76; women = 175). For the same trial, an intervention arm without a lactation consultant but with the BF booklet and video did not have the same effect on proportion of women exclusively BF at three months (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.05; women = 159) or six months (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.70; women = 184). One study compared monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone message versus standard care and reported improvements in the proportion of women exclusively BF at both three and six months (three months OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.95; women = 390; six months OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.11; women = 390). One study found monthly BF sessions and weekly cell phone messages improved initiation of BF over standard care (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.24; women = 380). BF education session versus standard care, pooled analyses for 'Summary of findings' (SoF)This comparison does not include cluster-randomised trials reporting adjusted odds ratios. We did not downgrade any evidence for trials' lack of blinding; no trial had adequate blinding of staff and participants. The SoF table presents risk ratios for all outcomes analysed. For proportion of women exclusively BF there is no evidence that antenatal BF education improved BF at three months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; women = 822; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence) or at six months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; women = 2161; studies = 4; moderate quality evidence). For proportion of women with any BF there were no group differences in BF at three (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; women = 654; studies = 2; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence) or six months (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23; women = 1636; studies = 4; I² = 61%; high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that antenatal BF education could improve initiation of BF (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; women = 3505; studies = 8; I² = 69%; high-quality evidence). Where we downgraded evidence this was due to small sample size or wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, or both.There was insufficient data for subgroup analysis of mother's occupation or education.

METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 9550 women (9665 infants including 111 twins and two triplets) admitted to the labour wards of nine hospitals in four South East Asian countries during 2005. For women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation we collected information on women's demographic and pregnancy background, the type, dose and use of corticosteroids, and key birth and infant outcomes.

RESULTS: Administration of antenatal corticosteroids to women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation varied widely between countries (9% to 73%) and also between hospitals within countries (0% to 86%). Antenatal corticosteroids were most commonly given when women were between 28 and 34 weeks gestation (80%). Overall 6% of women received repeat doses of corticosteroids. Dexamethasone was the only type of antenatal corticosteroid used. Women receiving antenatal corticosteroids compared with those not given antenatal corticosteroids were less likely to have had a previous pregnancy and to be booked for birth at the hospital and almost three times as likely to have a current multiple pregnancy. Exposed women were less likely to be induced and almost twice as likely to have a caesarean section, a primary postpartum haemorrhage and postpartum pyrexia. Infants exposed to antenatal corticosteroids compared with infants not exposed were less likely to die. Live born exposed infants were less likely to have Apgar scores of < 7 at five minutes and less likely to have any lung disease.