Reversing physician hesitancy to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant patients

An exploration of women's decision-making processes around accepting or declining vaccinations in pregnancy: A qualitative descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

To explore women's perceptions and experiences of accepting or declining vaccinations in pregnancy, and to identify factors that influence vaccination uptake.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive interview-based study.

SETTING

The maternity unit of a rural hospital in the Republic of Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of eight women who were pregnant, aged 18 and over, who were receiving antenatal care through the public healthcare system. Half of the participants accepted vaccinations, while the other half declined, reflecting varying levels of vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

Semi structured interviews (n=8) were conducted between July 2022 and August 2022 and analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

The study offers insight into women's decision-making processes on vaccinations in pregnancy. Five main themes were identified (1). Maternal Instincts in the Shadow of Uncertainty, (2). Lack of Balanced Information, (3). Misinformation: Difficult to Ignore, (4). Navigating Fear and Social Pressures, (5). Perceived Benefits Outweighing Risk.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process around vaccination in pregnancy is complex and multifaceted, influenced by various factors that can either hinder or promote uptake rates. Participants expressed complex emotions, associated fears and anxieties, and highlighted the necessity for more balanced and transparent dialogues with healthcare professionals. They emphasised the need for the dissemination of high-quality objective evidence from health authorities. This, they felt, would help facilitate genuine informed decision making, and ease the burden of feelings of uncertainty.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The provision of balanced, reliable, evidence-based information made available through multiple sources, alongside open and non-judgemental conversations with healthcare professionals is essential to support women in making informed decisions. Consequently, healthcare professionals require education and training to effectively communicate vaccination information clearly, empathetically, and in a way that is tailored to individual needs.

Attitudes and Experiences Regarding Communication About Maternal Vaccination: Qualitative Findings from Non-Hispanic Black Pregnant People

Comprehensive prenatal care incorporates recommended vaccines to help protect the mother, the pregnancy, and the infant from adverse health outcomes and severe illness from vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs). However, vaccinations during pregnancy remain underutilized, often influenced by concerns about vaccine safety and low perception of disease risk. Self-reported vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people in the United States has significantly increased in the last few years, and influenza and Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis) vaccination rates have declined. Furthermore, the number of vaccines routinely recommended during pregnancy has expanded. Communication strategies tailored to pregnant people may help build vaccine confidence among pregnant people and their health care providers. While characteristics and perceptions associated with hesitancy to vaccinate during pregnancy are documented in existing literature, more information is needed on promising communication practices preferred by subgroups of pregnant persons, particularly Black pregnant people who have higher rates of illness from VPDs and greater risk of pregnancy-related complications. This article summarizes literature on the current landscape of prenatal vaccination, discusses qualitative findings from focus groups with non-Hispanic Black pregnant people, and describes promising practices for communicating with this group about vaccination. Promising practices include specifying the benefits of vaccination for both the pregnant person and the infant, outlining potential risks, and emphasizing the overall importance of vaccination during pregnancy, while also acknowledging that many non-Hispanic Black pregnant people may have health concerns they perceive as superseding vaccination.

Respect for history: an important dimension of contemporary obstetrics and gynecology

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This maxim underscores the importance of historical awareness in medicine, particularly for obstetricians and gynecologists (ObGyns). ObGyns significantly impact societal health through their care for pregnant women, fetuses, and newborns, uniquely positioning them to advocate for health initiatives with lasting societal benefits. Despite its importance, the history of medicine is underrepresented in medical curricula, missing opportunities to foster critical thinking and ethical decision-making. In today's climate of threatened reproductive rights, vaccine misinformation, and harmful ideologies, it is imperative for ObGyns to champion comprehensive historical education. The history of medicine, particularly in relation to societal issues - such as racism, discrimination, genocides, pandemics, and wars - provides valuable context for addressing challenges like maternal mortality, reproductive rights, vaccine hesitancy, and ethical issues. Understanding historical milestones and notable ethical breaches, such as the Tuskegee Study and the thalidomide tragedy, informs better practices and safeguards patient rights. Technological advancements in hygiene, antibiotics, vaccines, and prenatal care have revolutionized the field, yet contemporary ObGyns must remain vigilant about lessons learned from past challenges and successes. Integrating historical knowledge into medical training enhances clinical proficiency and ethical responsibility, fostering innovation and improving health outcomes. By reflecting on historical achievements and their impacts, current and future ObGyns can advance the field, ensuring comprehensive and ethically sound approaches to patient care. This paper highlights the crucial role of historical knowledge in shaping modern ObGyn practices, advocating for its integration into medical education to address contemporary health challenges and ethical considerations.

Planning for the future of maternal immunization: Building on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic

As the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, the clinical and public health community raced to understand SARS-CoV-2 infection and develop life-saving vaccines. Pregnant persons were disproportionately impacted, experiencing more severe illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes. And yet, when COVID-19 vaccines became available in late 2020, safety and efficacy data were not available to inform their use during pregnancy because pregnant persons were excluded from pre-authorization clinical trials. Concerns about vaccine safety during pregnancy and misinformation linking vaccination and infertility circulated widely, creating a lack of vaccine confidence. Many pregnant people initially chose not to get vaccinated, and while vaccination rates rose after safety and effectiveness data became available, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was suboptimal and varied across racial and ethnic distribution of the pregnant population. The COVID-19 pandemic experience provided valuable insights that can inform current and future approaches to maternal vaccination against.

Pregnant individuals perspectives towards receiving COVID-19 vaccination during their pregnancy: an in-depth qualitative study

Introduction

Pregnant individuals have an increased risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Vaccination is an effective strategy to prevent severe illness and complications for pregnant individuals. Pregnant individuals are often excluded from research and remain hesitant to receive vaccination against COVID-19. It is pivotal to study factors related to vaccine uptake and hesitancy among pregnant individuals. We studied barriers and facilitators for pregnant individuals choice and motivation regarding vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy to aid future pregnant individuals in their decision to vaccinate against various infectious agents.

Methods

In this qualitative study, pregnant individuals were interviewed between October 2021 and January 2022 using a semi-structured approach. A topic list was used to explore their feelings, perceptions and ideas regarding vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analyses was performed using MAX QDA.

Results

After nine interviews, saturation was reached. Three main themes were identified that influenced pregnant individuals choice and motivation regarding vaccination: health consequences, ambiguity of information and societal motivation. Health consequences mainly concerned the effect for their offspring, and the unknown long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination. The advice from the Dutch institute for Public Health and Environment changed from not vaccinating pregnant individuals after release of the developed vaccine, to routinely vaccinating all pregnant individuals after research data were available from the United States of America (USA). This change of policy fuelled doubt and confusion for vaccination. Arguments in favor of vaccination from the social perspective were specific behaviour rules and restrictions due to the pandemic. E.g. without vaccination people were unable to travel abroad and having to take a COVID-19 test every time entering a public place.

Conclusion

Pregnant individuals need clear, unambiguous information concerning health consequences, short- and long-term, particularly for their offspring, in the decision-making process regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, the societal perspective needs to be addressed. Besides the aforementioned themes, general counselling should focus on misperceptions of vaccine safety and the role of misinformation which are also important in the non-pregnant population. This study underlines the importance of including pregnant individuals in research programs to obtain specific information targeted to their needs.

Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Pregnant and Breastfeeding/Puerperium Women: A Cross-Sectional Study

Vaccination among pregnant and breastfeeding women is critical for protecting this vulnerable population and their children. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended both during pregnancy and breastfeeding; however, we still do not fully understand the determinants that influence hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to identify the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in pregnant and breastfeeding, puerperium women. A multicenter, cross-sectional study, involving 435 pregnant and breastfeeding women, was conducted. Vaccination hesitancy was evaluated by administering the Vaccination Attitudes (VAX) Scale and the Zung Anxiety Self-Assessment Scale (SAS) was adopted to measure anxiety levels. Overall, 14% of the participants reported that they did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and 78.3% received their first dose during pregnancy or while breastfeeding. The descriptive statistics for the VAX scale showed a total mean score of 3.35 (±1.6), and 75% of participants reported an anxiety index equal to or lower than the threshold. Vaccine hesitancy increased as "adverse events after vaccination" increased (p < 0.01), while SAS levels positively correlated with the participants' mean age (p < 0.05). Investigating the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy enables the development of targeted health policies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs.

Obstetric violence is a misnomer

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccination Among Pregnant Persons in Urban Hospital-Affiliated Practices: Exploring Themes in Vaccine Hesitancy

OBJECTIVE

To explore beliefs and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine among vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant persons in order to identify reasons for both vaccine hesitancy and vaccine uptake.

METHODS

From June-August 2021, we conducted a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews with pregnant persons (n = 30). Participants were recruited from university-owned obstetric practices during prenatal and ultrasound appointments. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Of the participants, one-third (n = 10) had received the COVID-19 vaccine, while two-thirds (n = 20) were unvaccinated. Primary themes for unvaccinated participants were concern about the paucity of research on the vaccine in pregnancy and potential impact of the vaccine on both fetal development and maternal health. For vaccinated participants, main themes included potential maternal and fetal protection from COVID-19 and anticipated health complications from contracting COVID-19 as their motivations to get vaccinated. While most participants cited healthcare providers as the most trusted source of vaccine information, a majority reported that the internet was their primary source of vaccine information. Many participants wanted to learn more about the COVID-19 vaccine from their obstetric providers, and notably, most vaccinated participants reported the importance of their obstetrician in their vaccine decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among pregnant persons, with concerns for vaccine safety for their fetus, as well as for themselves, being common. Obstetric providers must therefore be prepared to address common concerns with patients during prenatal appointments, taking the time to actively recommend vaccination.

Anger: an underappreciated destructive force in healthcare

Anger is an emotional state that occurs when unexpected things happen to or around oneself and is "an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage." It is defined as "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism," an emotion characterized by tension and hostility arising from frustration, real or imagined injury by another, or perceived injustice. It can manifest itself in behaviors designed to remove the object of the anger (e.g., determined action) or behaviors designed merely to express the emotion. For the Roman philosopher Seneca anger is not an uncontrollable, impulsive, or instinctive reaction. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It seems that the year 2022 was a year when many Americans were plainly angry. "Why is everyone so angry?" the New York Times asked in the article "The Year We Lost It." We believe that Seneca is correct in that anger is unacceptable. Anger is a negative emotion that must be controlled, and Seneca provides us with the tools to avoid and destroy anger. Health care professionals will be more effective, content, and happier if they learn more about Seneca's writings about anger and implement his wisdom on anger from over 2000 years ago.

The shift in COVID-19 vaccination policy for pregnant women, from restricted to required, and the confusion that ensued

Introduction

The aim was to investigate the response of pregnant women when the COVID-19 vaccination policy shifted from restricted to required, and the confusion that ensued during pregnancy, bearing in mind that women undergo unique physiological and immunological changes during pregnancy, making them at risk of developing a more severe course of COVID-19 infection compared to their non-pregnant peers.

Material and methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out at the outpatient clinics at Jordan University Hospital for all pregnant women during the period of the survey from 1st October 2021 to 31st December 2021, focusing on the source of information about the vaccine, receiving the vaccine, and the reasons for rejecting the vaccine, especially during pregnancy.

Results

In total, 468 pregnant women were interviewed. The single primary source of information about the COVID-19 vaccine was the traditional media, audio-visual and print media being the most important as reported by 191 women (40.81%), while possible harm to the fetus was the single main reason for refusal of vaccination during pregnancy as reported by 111 women (23.72%).

Conclusions

Reluctance toward vaccination is primarily driven by the fierce media campaign that portrayed its initially ambiguous effects on the pregnancy and fetus in a negative light, in conjunction with the open media platforms that enabled semi-experts to issue medically inaccurate statements and information and further complicated the matter by planting the seed of fear and mistrust of the public in the health care system and providers. More public healthcare awareness regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine is needed.

The impact of birth settings on pregnancy outcomes in the United States

In the United States, 98.3% of patients give birth in hospitals, 1.1% give birth at home, and 0.5% give birth in freestanding birth centers. This review investigated the impact of birth settings on birth outcomes in the United States. Presently, there are insufficient data to evaluate levels of maternal mortality and severe morbidity according to place of birth. Out-of-hospital births are associated with fewer interventions such as episiotomies, epidural anesthesia, operative deliveries, and cesarean deliveries. When compared with hospital births, there are increased rates of avoidable adverse perinatal outcomes in out-of-hospital births in the United States, both for those with and without risk factors. In one recent study, the neonatal mortality rates were significantly elevated for all planned home births: 13.66 per 10,000 live births (242/177,156; odds ratio, 4.19; 95% confidence interval, 3.62-4.84; P<.0001) vs 3.27 per 10,000 live births for in-hospital Certified Nurse-Midwife-attended births (745/2,280,044; odds ratio, 1). These differences increased further when patients were stratified by recognized risk factors such as breech presentation, multiple gestations, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, and postterm pregnancy. Causes of the increased perinatal morbidity and mortality include deliveries of patients with increased risks, absence of standardized criteria to exclude high-risk deliveries, and that most midwives attending out-of-hospital births in the United States do not meet the gold standard for midwifery regulation, the International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education. As part of the informed consent process, pregnant patients interested in out-of-hospital births should be informed of its increased perinatal risks. Hospital births should be supported for all patients, especially those with increased risks.

Development of an Interprofessional Psychosocial Interventions Framework

To meet the increasingly complex needs of mental health consumers, it is essential for multidisciplinary clinicians to have capabilities across a range of psychosocial interventions. Despite this, there is scant evidence investigating the existing levels of knowledge and skills of specialties within multidisciplinary mental health teams. The purpose of this paper was to describe the self-reported capabilities of mental health clinicians, and to provide a rationale for the Psychosocial Interventions Framework Assessment (PIFA), which aims to enhance the access to, and quality of, evidence-informed practice for consumers of mental health services (MHSs) by strengthening workforce capabilities and leadership for psychosocial therapies. Using the Delphi method, the team developed a 75-item survey based on the 10-point Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS). Participants completed a self-administered survey indicating their perceived capabilities in the PIFA items. The findings revealed lower-than-expected average scores between 'novice' and 'proficient', highlighting the need for further development of specific training and education modules for individual teams. This is the first framework of its nature to use the Recovery Star^TM to determine the psychosocial areas and domains for the assessment of practitioners' strengths and needs for skill development.

A Sensitive Public Health Issue—The Vaccine Acceptancy and the Anti-Pertussis Immune Status of Pregnant Women from a Romanian Metropolitan Area

(1) Background: Immunization of pregnant women (PWs) against Bordetella pertussis infection is still a challenging health matter. (2) Methods: We gathered questionnaire data from 180 PWs regarding their expectancies and current opinion on infectious disease prevention. For the group of PWs who agreed to further investigations, the serum levels of Ig G anti-B. pertussis antibodies (IgG-PT) titer were measured and analyzed. (3) Results: A total of 180 PWs completed the questionnaire and 98 (54.44%, study group) accepted to perform the laboratory tests. During the first two pregnancy trimesters, PWs were found to be more willing (compared with the control group) to test for identifying high-risk situations that could affect themselves and their future infant (p < 0.001). Most of the participating PWs (91, 91.9%) had low levels of anti-pertussis antibodies (values < 40 IU/mL). Declared vaccine coverage of the PWs newborn infants for DTaP-1 and Prevenar 13 (at 2 months) and DTaP-2 and Prevenar 13 (at 4 months) vaccination reached 100% in the study group, while in the control group only 30/82 (36.59%) PWs accepted to be vaccinated during pregnancy, none of them providing data on their infants’ vaccine coverage. (4) Conclusions: Enrolled PWs faced a waning immunity against the B. pertussis infection. By raising maternal confidence in the protective role of vaccines against infectious diseases, better vaccine acceptance and better infant vaccine coverage can be achieved.

Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women on maternal immunization against COVID-19 in Croatia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes regarding maternal COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed in two teaching hospitals between May and October 2021 in Zagreb, Croatia. During antenatal clinic visit pregnant women were approached and asked to fill out a predesigned questionnaire about their knowledge and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Collected data was later analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 430 women participated in the study. Only 16% of women expressed their willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 if offered, despite that 71% of them believe that COVID-19 might be a serious illness in pregnant women. The most important obstacle in having better acceptance of the vaccines is in the assumption that the vaccines are not safe for pregnant women (73%) or the fetus (75%), or that the vaccines are not effective (41%). The relationship exists between acceptance of vaccination in general and willingness to get other vaccines in pregnancy and readiness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in pregnancy. Only one out of 55 women who were not adherent to the current vaccination recommendations in Croatia would accept the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy if offered. 21 (5%) women stated that vaccination against influenza and pertussis during pregnancy is necessary and 13 (62%) of them would get vaccinated against COVID-19 if offered.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the crucial reasons for refusing vaccination against COVID-19 among pregnant women in Croatia are the concerns about the vaccines' effectiveness and safety. All healthcare providers should put more effort into education of pregnant women on risks of COVID-19, as well as on the benefits and safety of the vaccines.

Global Cross-Sectional Study Evaluating the Attitudes towards a COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnant and Postpartum Women

Pregnant and postpartum women have an increased risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Many clinical guidelines recommend vaccination of these populations, and it is therefore critical to understand their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in November 2020 of currently pregnant and ≤1-year postpartum women in Brazil, India, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) that assessed their openness to COVID-19 vaccines and reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate openness to receiving a vaccine. Out of 2010 respondents, 67% were open to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine themselves. Among pregnant and postpartum participants, 72% and 57% were willing to receive a vaccine, respectively. Vaccine openness varied significantly by country: India (87%), Brazil (71%), UK (59%), and US (52%). Across all participants, among the 33% who were unsure/not open to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, the most common reason cited was safety/side effect concerns (51%). Participants were similarly open to their children/other family members receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Presence of a comorbidity, a positive COVID-19 test result, and pregnancy were all significantly associated with positive vaccine acceptance. Targeted outreach to address pregnant and postpartum women's concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine is needed.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Hesitancy among Pregnant and Lactating Women in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Pregnant and breastfeeding women comprise a high-risk group for the development of severe COVID-19. Therefore, vaccination is highly recommended for perinatal women; however, vaccination levels for this group remain inadequate. This study explores the percentage of COVID-19 vaccination among Saudi pregnant and lactating women, as well as their attitudes toward it.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey on a sample of Saudi pregnant and breastfeeding women. The study included pregnant and lactating women.

RESULTS

The percentage of COVID-19 vaccine uptake was 78.2%. A total of 45 (21.8%) out of 206 women did not receive the vaccine. The overall vaccine hesitancy was 21.8%. Breastfeeding women were 2.86 more likely not to receive the vaccine as compared to pregnant women. Being a mother of over five children increased the vaccine uptake among our participating women (n = 20, 90%; p < 0.01). The majority of the subjects had taken the Pfizer vaccine (81.98%, 132/161). The availability of the COVID-19 vaccine was the most common factor for choosing a particular vaccine. Protection from infection (60.2%, 97/161) was reported as the main driver for vaccine uptake. The most common reason perceived for delaying COVID-19 vaccination was being worried about the side effects (176, 85.44%) on one's own body and the effects on the unborn child (130, 63.1%).

CONCLUSION

We uncovered high levels of hesitancy, primarily induced by concerns about adverse effects and social media-related misinformation. These high levels of vaccine uptake are likely due to the large-scale obligatory vaccination program provided in Saudi Arabia, which was well-structured and far reaching. Our results provide further support for the so-called "protection motivation theory" in boosting vaccine acceptance. Counseling and educating pregnant and breastfeeding women about COVID-19 vaccination is the need of the hour.

Covid and pregnancy in the United States - an update as of August 2022

COVID-19 is caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The first cases of COVID-19 were identified in December 2019, and the first United States (US) case was identified on January 20th, 2020. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout the world and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020. As of July 2022, about 90 million persons have been infected with COVID-19 in the US, and there have been over 1 million deaths There have been 224,587 pregnant patients infected with COVID-19, and 34,527 were hospitalized. Pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease associated with COVID-19 and vaccinated patients are significantly less likely to develop severe disease. Adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes are more common among women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, especially among those with severe disease, and vaccination also protects the newborn infant. The intrauterine transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be rare. COVID-19 vaccinations and booster shots in pregnancy are safe. In addition, the available data suggest that vaccination during pregnancy is associated with the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to the fetus. The vaccination of lactating women is associated with high levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the breast milk. It is important that with future pandemics the concept of vaccine recommendations in pregnancy should be made early on to prevent maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Physicians and other healthcare professionals should strongly recommend COVID-19 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and to those who are breastfeeding.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in an Underrepresented Minority Community

To assess factors influencing acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine in a population of predominantly indigent, minority, pregnant and non-pregnant people of reproductive age. Cross-sectional survey using a modified Health Belief model administered between January 2021 and January 2022 at four hospitals in Brooklyn. Participants included English-speaking reproductive aged persons attending clinics at the participating sites. Descriptive and univariate data analyses were used for analysis. 283 eligible reproductive persons were approached of whom 272 completed the survey (96%). Three quarters said they would take the vaccine under certain circumstances ("as soon as it is ready" [28.6%], "when my doctor recommends it" [21.3%] or "when enough people have received it to know if it works" [25%]), while 25% said they would never take the vaccine. When comparing persons that would take it under certain circumstances to those that never would, the "never" group was significantly more likely to note that, "they would not trust any COVID vaccine" (71.4% vs. 28.5%; p ≤ 0.0001). This greater level of distrust extended to greater distrust of doctors, government, family, newspapers, and media. However, 36% said they would be influenced by their doctor's recommendation. Pregnant participants were significantly more likely to wait until their doctor recommended it (17.6% of pregnant persons compared to 3.7% of non-pregnant p < 0.0001). Despite mistrust and other discouraging factors, many persons, under appropriate circumstances (e.g., reassurance about vaccine safety) may be motivated to take the vaccine. Even those who claimed that they wouldn't take the vaccine under any circumstance may be influenced by their health care providers.

Acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination among postpartum women during delivery hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

The immediate postpartum period, during delivery hospitalization, represents a unique opportunity to offer coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination to those who did not previously receive it. In this study, we evaluated patient characteristics associated with acceptance of vaccination in this group.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated all unvaccinated patients who were offered postpartum COVID-19 vaccination during delivery hospitalization between May 2021 and September 2021 at seven hospitals within a large integrated health system in New York. During the study period, each hospitalized, unvaccinated obstetrical patient was offered the vaccine prior to discharge. Patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing during hospitalization were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to obtain sociodemographic characteristics and to confirm administration of COVID-19 vaccination. Multiple logistic regression was performed to model the probability of receiving postpartum vaccination.

RESULTS

A total of 8,281 unvaccinated postpartum patients were included for analysis and 412 (5%) received a COVID-19 vaccine before hospital discharge. Patients who received the vaccine were more likely to be older, have private insurance, decline to answer questions about religious affiliation, and deliver in the final two months of the study period. Likelihood of receiving postpartum vaccination was not affected by race-ethnicity, preferred language, marital status, parity, body mass index, or neighborhood socioeconomic conditions. Patients who declined vaccination were more likely to have positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing at delivery compared to those who received vaccination (49 vs. 29%; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Only 5% of unvaccinated postpartum patients received a COVID-19 vaccine before hospital discharge. It is concerning that patients with public health insurance were less likely to receive vaccination. This may be due to variation in vaccine counseling or other unmeasured factors. Despite the low acceptance rate in our study population, COVID-19 vaccination should be offered in a variety of clinical settings to maximize opportunities for administration.

Cross-Sectional Survey of High-Risk Pregnant Women's Opinions on COVID-19 Vaccination

Background:

Pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite strong recommendations from American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine for vaccination, COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy persists. With this study, we aim to evaluate opinions about the COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of high-risk pregnant patients.

Materials and Methods:

Institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients attending a regional Maternal–Fetal Medicine clinic in central New York were surveyed about the COVID-19 vaccine using a standardized questionnaire. Demographic, obstetrical, and medical information was abstracted using medical records. The vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were evaluated using chi-square tests and a Bayesian model.

Results:

Among the 157 participants, 38.2% are vaccinated. There were no significant differences in race/ethnicity, living situation, marital status, employment status, insurance type, pregravid body mass index, history of recreational drug use, number of living children, or gestational age at the time of survey. Patients with less formal education are less likely to be vaccinated. There was no difference between influenza and tetanus diphtheria pertussis vaccination rates with COVID-19 vaccination rates. Unvaccinated patients cite lack of data in pregnancy (66%) as their primary concern. Most patients prefer to learn about vaccines via conversation with their doctor (46.7% for vaccinated and 59.8% for unvaccinated).

Conclusions:

The vaccination rate is low in our population. A provider-initiated conversation about COVID-19 vaccination included with routine prenatal care could increase the vaccination rate.

John Stuart Mill is relevant to COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy today

The scientific evidence about COVID-19 and pregnancy is conclusive: COVID-19 infections increase the risk of stillbirths and preterm births, and pregnant and postpartum patients are more likely to get severely ill with COVID-19 and die when compared with people who are not pregnant. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine protects from severe illness from COVID-19 and risk of death. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for pregnant patients, those trying to conceive, and who are breastfeeding, or might become pregnant in the future. The justification for government involvement in public health measures that restrict personal liberty that we are so familiar with today emanated from a philosophical source at the same time as the progress in managing infectious disease. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an empiricist and a utilitarian, was not specifically addressing the ethics of public health in his classic On Liberty (1859), but his arguments have become the reference point for liberal democracies and public health measures. Mill was in search of a philosophical principle that could justify constraints on personal freedom. John Stuart Mill gives direct guidance to our approach supporting not only strong recommendations for pregnant patients to accept vaccinations against COVID-19 but also for those working in healthcare setting to be required to be vaccinated. This approach is respectful to our patient's liberty while doing all that's reasonable to protect them from harm. Based on our professional experience we recognize that some physicians and patients have fixed false beliefs. Physicians espousing fixed false beliefs against COVID-19 vaccines should be censured.