Mental health of pregnant women during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France: Evolution of self-perceived psychological state during the first lockdown, and anxiety frequency two months after the lockdown ended.

Previous pandemics and related lockdowns have had a deleterious impact on pregnant women's mental health. We studied the impact of the SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 pandemic and France's first lockdown on pregnant women's mental health. A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2020 using a web-questionnaire completed by 500 adult women who were pregnant during the first lockdown in France (March-May 2020). Questions focused on their self-perceived psychological state and affects they felt before and during the lockdown and anxiety symptomatology (HAD) two months after it ended. A robust variance Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for anxiety and self-perceived psychological state evolution. One in five respondents (21.1%) reported psychological deterioration during lockdown. Associated determinants were: i) little or no social support (self-perceived) (aRP = 1.77, 95%CI[1.18-2.66]), ii) increased workload (1.65, [1.02-2.66]), and iii) poor/moderate knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 transmission (1.60, [1.09-2.35]). Seven percent of women reporting psychological deterioration had access to professional psychological support during lockdown, while 19% did not despite wanting it. Women reported heightened powerlessness (60.3%), frustration (64%) and fear (59.2%) during lockdown. One in seven respondents (14.2%, 95%CI[10.9-18.2]) had anxiety symptoms. Determinants associated: i) at least one pregnancy-related pathology (aPR = 1.82, 95%CI[1.15-2.88]), ii) overweightness or obesity (1.61, [1.07-2.43]), iii) one child under the age of six years in the household during the lockdown (3.26, [1.24-8.53]), iv) little or no social support (self-perceived) during the lockdown (1.66, [1.07-2.58]), v) friend or relatives diagnosed with Covid-19 or with symptoms of the disease (1.66; [1.06-2.60]), vi) no access to medication for psychological distress (2.86, [1.74-4.71]), and vii) unsuccessfully seeking exchanges with healthcare professionals about their pregnancy during the pandemic (1.66, [1.08-2.55]). Our results can guide prevention and support policies for pregnant women during pandemics, current or future, with or without lockdowns. Preventing perinatal mental health problems is essential to ensure a supportive environment for the child's development.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Pregnant women's unmet need to communicate with a health professional during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown in France: The Covimater cross-sectional study.

During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic lockdown, communication between pregnant women and health professionals may have become complicated due to restrictions on movement and saturated health services. This could have impacts on pregnancy monitoring and women's wellbeing. We aimed to i) describe the unmet need of pregnant women living in France to communicate with health professionals about the pandemic and their pregnancy during the lockdown, ii) assess the socio-demographic, medical and contextual factors associated with this unmet need. The Covimater cross-sectional study, conducted in July 2020, includes data on 500 adult women's experiences of pregnancy during the first lockdown period in France (i.e., from March to May 2020). The women, all residents in metropolitan France, answered a web-based questionnaire about their conversations with health professionals during the lockdown, as well as their social and medical characteristics. A robust variance Poisson regression model was used to estimate crude or adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for their unmet need to communicate with health professionals about the pandemic and their pregnancy. Forty-one percent of participants reported an unmet need to communicate with a health professional during the lockdown, mainly about the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to their baby and the consequences for the latter. Factors associated were: i) being professionally inactive (aPR = 1.58,CI95%[(1.14-2.21]), ii) having an educational level below secondary school diploma (1.38,[1.05,-1.81]), iii) having experienced serious arguments/violence (2.12,[1.28-3.52]), iv) being very worried about the pandemic (1.41,[1.11-1.78]), v) being primiparous (1.36,[1.06-1.74]) and vi) having had pregnancy consultations postponed/cancelled by health professionals during the lockdown (1.35,[1.06-1.73]). These results can be used to develop targeted strategies that ensure pregnant women are able to i) communicate with health professionals about the potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on their pregnancy, and ii) access up-to-date and reliable information on the consequences of SARS-CoV-2 for themselves and their child.

Perception of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by pregnant women during the first lockdown in France: worry, perceived vulnerability, adoption and maintenance of prevention measures according to the Covimater study.

Background: We aimed to describe pregnant women's worry about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the associated reasons, their perceived vulnerability to this infection, and factors influencing continued poor/non-existent or decreased implementation of preventive measures over time. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2020 using a web-questionnaire completed by 500 women who were pregnant during the first lockdown in France (March-May 2020). Questions focused on worry caused by the pandemic, perceived vulnerability to infection by SARS-CoV-2 and implementation of preventive measures during and after lockdown. A robust variance Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for perceived vulnerability and continued poor/non-existent or decreased implementation of preventive measures. Results: Participants felt significantly more vulnerable to infection than women of childbearing age who were included in a parallel study on the French general population, but were significantly less worried about the pandemic. Obese participants and those who unsuccessfully sought exchanges with healthcare professionals about their infection risk felt significantly more vulnerable (aPR = 1.32 95%CI[1.05-1.64] and 1.88 [1.43-2.48], respectively). Participants with continued poor/non-existent or decreased implementation of preventive measures two months after the lockdown ended were more likely to have experienced violence during the lockdown (2.06, [1.32-3.22]), or to live in areas less affected by the pandemic (1.66 [1.05-2.62]). A good knowledge of viral transmission (0.54 [0.30-0.97]) and a high perceived vulnerability score (0.66 [0.44-0.99]) were associated with maintained/increased implementation of preventive measures. Conclusions: Our results can guide prevention and support policies for pregnant women during pandemics, current or future.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and first lockdown on pregnancy monitoring in France: the COVIMATER cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, consultations and pregnancy monitoring examinations had to be reorganised urgently. In addition, women themselves may have postponed or cancelled their medical monitoring for organisational reasons, for fear of contracting the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) or for other reasons of their own. Delayed care can have deleterious consequences for both the mother and the child. Our objective was therefore to study the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the first lockdown in France on voluntary changes by pregnant women in the medical monitoring of their pregnancy and the associated factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2020 using a web-questionnaire completed by 500 adult (> 18 years old) pregnant women during the first French lockdown (March-May 2020). A robust variance Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs). RESULTS: Almost one women of five (23.4%) reported having voluntarily postponed or foregone at least one consultation or pregnancy check-up during the lockdown. Women who were professionally inactive (aPR = 1.98, CI95%[1.24-3.16]), who had experienced serious disputes or violence during the lockdown (1.47, [1.00-2.16]), who felt they received little or no support (1.71, [1.07-2.71]), and those who changed health professionals during the lockdown (1.57, [1.04-2.36]) were all more likely to have voluntarily changed their pregnancy monitoring. Higher level of worry about the pandemic was associated with a lower probability of voluntarily changing pregnancy monitoring (0.66, [0.46-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can guide prevention and support policies for pregnant women in the current and future pandemics.

Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of infectious diseases generate outbreaks of scientific evidence. In 2016 epidemics of Zika virus emerged, and in 2020, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared patterns of scientific publications for the two infections to analyse the evolution of the evidence. METHODS: We annotated publications on Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 that we collected using living evidence databases according to study design. We used descriptive statistics to categorise and compare study designs over time. RESULTS: We found 2286 publications about Zika virus in 2016 and 21,990 about SARS-CoV-2 up to 24 May 2020, of which we analysed a random sample of 5294 (24%). For both infections, there were more epidemiological than laboratory science studies. Amongst epidemiological studies for both infections, case reports, case series and cross-sectional studies emerged first, cohort and case-control studies were published later. Trials were the last to emerge. The number of preprints was much higher for SARS-CoV-2 than for Zika virus. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in the overall pattern of publications might be generalizable, whereas differences are compatible with differences in the characteristics of a disease. Understanding how evidence accumulates during disease outbreaks helps us understand which types of public health questions we can answer and when.