Strategies to support maternal and early childhood wellness: insight from parent and provider qualitative interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes to the delivery of maternal and newborn care. Our aim was to gain an understanding from parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs) of how the pandemic and associated public health restrictions impacted the peripartum and postpartum experience, as well as longer-term health and well-being of families.

DESIGN

Qualitative study through focus groups.

SETTING

Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

HCPs and parents who had a child born during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTERVENTIONS

Semistructured interview guide, with questions focused on how the pandemic impacted their care/their ability to provide care, and strategies to improve care and support now or in future situations with similar healthcare restrictions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Thematic analysis was used to describe participant experiences and recommendations.

RESULTS

We included 11 HCPs and 15 parents in 6 focus groups. Participants described their experiences as 'traumatic', with difficulties in accessing prenatal and postpartum services, and feelings of distress and isolation. They also noted delays in speech and development in children born during the pandemic. Key recommendations included the provision of partner accompaniment throughout the course of care, expansion of available services for young families (particularly postpartum), and special considerations for marginalised groups, including access to technology for virtual care or the option of in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may inform the development of healthcare system and organisational policies to ensure the provision of maternal and newborn care in the event of future public health emergencies. Of primary importance to the participants was the accommodation of antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum partner accompaniment, and the provision of postpartum services.

Reactogenicity, pregnancy outcomes, and SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy in Canada: A national prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To describe self-reported reactogenicity, pregnancy outcomes, and SARS-CoV-2 infection following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

DESIGN

National, prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Participants across Canada were enrolled from July 2021 until June 2022.

POPULATION

Individuals pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of vaccination status, were included.

METHODS

The Canadian COVID-19 Vaccine Registry for Pregnant and Lactating Individuals (COVERED) was advertised through traditional and social media. Surveys were administered at baseline, following each vaccine dose if vaccinated, pregnancy conclusion, and every two months for 14 months. Changes to pregnancy or vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 infections, or significant health events were recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reactogenicity (local and systemic adverse events, and serious adverse events) within 1 week post-vaccination, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Among 2868 participants who received 1-2 doses of a COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, adverse events described included: headache (19.5-33.9%), nausea (4.8-13.8%), fever (2.7-10.2%), and myalgia (33.4-42.2%). Reactogenicity was highest after the 2nd dose of vaccine in pregnancy. Compared to 1660 unvaccinated participants, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse pregnancy or infant outcomes, aside from an increased risk of NICU admission ≥ 24 h among the unvaccinated group. During follow-up, there was a higher rate of participant-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection in the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated group (18[47.4%] vs. 786[27.3%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Participant-reported reactogenicity was similar to reports from non-pregnant adults. There was no increase in adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated participants and lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported in vaccinated participants.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

No significant increase in adverse pregnancy or infant outcomes among vaccinated versus unvaccinated pregnant women in Canada.

Worries, beliefs and factors influencing perinatal COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional survey of preconception, pregnant and lactating individuals

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for pregnant and lactating individuals, and there is substantial evidence for their safety and effectiveness. As the pandemic continues, information on worries and beliefs surrounding perinatal COVID-19 vaccination remains important to inform efforts aimed at improving vaccine uptake. Our objectives were to assess factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among perinatal individuals; and to explore motivational factors associated with willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated perinatal individuals.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional web-based survey of preconception, pregnant, and lactating individuals in Canada. The outcomes of interest were vaccination with at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated individuals. Sample characteristics were summarized using frequencies and percentages. The association between eight prespecified risk factors and two outcomes (vaccination status and willingness to be vaccinated) was assessed by logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the total sample, and across perinatal sub-groups.

RESULTS

Among 3446 survey respondents, there were 447 (13.0%) preconception, 1832 (53.2%) pregnant, and 1167 (42.4%) lactating. There were 1460 (42.4%) and 1982 (57.5%) who were vaccinated and unvaccinated, respectively. Factors positively associated with COVID-19 vaccine status were speaking to a healthcare provider about vaccination during the perinatal period (aOR:2.35, 95% CI:1.97-2.80) and believing that the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:1.91, 95% CI:1.46-2.48). Factors negatively associated with vaccine status included worries about fetal growth and development (aOR:0.55, 95% CI:0.43-0.70) and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.59, 95% CI:0.46-0.75). Among unvaccinated individuals specifically, characteristics positively associated with willingness to vaccinate were speaking to a healthcare provider (aOR:1.67, 95% CI:1.32-2.12) and believing the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:3.56, 95% CI:2.70-4.69). Factors negatively associated with willingness were concerns over infertility (aOR:0.66, 95% CI:0.49-0.88), fetal growth and development (aOR:0.33, 95% CI:0.24-0.46), and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.64, 95% CI:0.48-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In this Canadian perinatal population, approximately 42% reported COVID-19 vaccination. Among unvaccinated individuals, willingness to receive vaccination was high (73%). Factors enhancing vaccine willingness included discussions with healthcare providers and believing the vaccine was effective. Concerns regarding vaccine safety, particularly with respect to fetal/child development, were the greatest barriers to vaccine uptake.

Key concerns among pregnant individuals during the pandemic: Online cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To determine common sources of concern among pregnant individuals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional, open, online electronic survey from May 9, 2020, to June 14, 2020.

SETTING

Electronic survey open internationally and advertised through Canadian-based social media platforms.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants understood English and had been pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic (ie, were pregnant at the time of survey completion or had delivered an infant on or after March 11, 2020).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Potential sources of concern related to the pandemic, calculated as the proportion of participants who endorsed each concern among those for whom the concern was relevant. Differences in the proportion of individuals endorsing each concern were compared by parity using modified Poisson regression. Frequency of concerns was examined in terms of level of distress, as per the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6), using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Out of 1477 participants, 87.3% were Canadian. Top concerns included the following: hospital policies related to support persons during labour (80.9%), not being able to introduce the baby to family and friends (80.1%), and developing COVID-19 while pregnant (79.2%). Primiparous participants were more likely than multiparous participants to be concerned about accessing in-person prenatal classes (51.5% vs 13.3%; relative risk = 3.88; 95% CI 2.02 to 4.98) and cancellation of hospital tours (35.0% vs 5.6%, relative risk = 6.26; 95% CI 4.25 to 9.20), among other concerns. The mean (SD) K6 score was 6.7 (3.8) within the moderate to high distress range. Number of concerns reported was associated with K6 score in both primiparous (β = 0.24; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.29; P < .0001) and multiparous (β = 0.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.36; P < .0001) individuals.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant individuals have unique concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic and the findings indicate the importance of targeted support strategies to meet the particular needs of both primiparous and multiparous pregnant individuals.

The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing

PURPOSE

Many chlamydia infections are identified through screening, which is frequently offered to females concomitantly with cervical cancer screening. Recent cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening less frequently and starting later. We sought to evaluate the impact of the May 2012 Ontario, Canada, cervical cancer screening guideline change on Papanicolaou (Pap) and chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) testing and incidence.

METHODS

We extracted population-based physician billing claims data to identify Pap and chlamydia tests and public health surveillance data to identify chlamydia cases. We used interrupted time series analysis of quarterly data spanning 2 years before and after the guideline change and fitted segmented linear regression or rational functions to the outcomes using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Outcomes were stratified by sex and age group.

RESULTS

Two years after the guideline change, we observed reduced chlamydia testing in females, with the greatest relative reduction (25.5%) among those aged 15 to 19 years. We also observed decreases in reported chlamydia incidence for females aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years (relative reductions of 16.8% and 14.4%, respectively). Chlamydia incidence remained the same for males, despite increased chlamydia testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent cervical cancer screening guideline changes in Ontario were associated with reduced chlamydia testing and reported new cases of chlamydia in females. Females aged 15 to 19 years, who are at high risk for chlamydia if sexually active, and who no longer warrant cervical cancer screening, were disproportionately affected. Females should be tested for chlamydia based on risk, regardless of need for Pap testing.

Missed connections: Unintended consequences of updated cervical cancer screening guidelines on screening rates for sexually transmitted infections

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of the updated 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines on the rates of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening in primary care.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Five academic family practice units at St Michael's Hospital in Toronto, Ont.

PARTICIPANTS

Female patients, aged 19 to 25, who had at least 1 visit with a physician at 1 of the 5 academic family practice units during a 12-month period before (May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2012) or after (November 1, 2012, to October 31, 2013) the release of the updated guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of women who received Papanicolaou tests or underwent STI screening; rates of STI screening performed during a Pap test or a periodic health examination; screening rates for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C; and the methods used for STI screening before and after the release of the updated guidelines. Results Before the release of the 2012 guidelines, 42 of 100 women had Pap tests and 40 of 100 women underwent STI screening. After the release of the guidelines, 17 of 100 women had Pap tests and 20 of 100 women received STI screening. Female patients were less likely to undergo STI screening under the 2012 guidelines compared with the 2005 guidelines (odds ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.74; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines was associated with lower rates of STI screening in the primary care setting. Primary care physicians should screen at-risk women for STIs at any clinically appropriate encounter and consider using noninvasive self-sampling methods.