Provision of antenatal care in Europe-A scientific study commissioned by European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG).

Differences in the way health care delivery across countries may have important impacts on health outcomes and can result in inequalities. A questionnaire survey of members of national societies through EBCOG and EAPM was carried out in 2021. A total of 53 responses were received from 26 countries. Most countries reported that routine antenatal care is primarily delivered by medical staff, involving obstetric specialists or family doctors mostly in government-run facilities. Women from minority groups are able to access antenatal care easily in most countries. Less than 10% of women did not attend antenatal care throughout the pregnancy. Most booking for antenatal care takes place in the first trimester and the number of visits range from 6 to 10 depending on parity. Most countries provide routine ultrasound with 2-3 reported scans performed by specifically trained health care professionals. Facilities for prenatal screening/diagnosis of malformations in both low- and high-risk cases varied across Europe. While antenatal care is relatively standardized throughout Europe, important differences still exist in care delivery and accessibility to care. Antenatal preventive strategies appear to be variably available throughout Europe.

EBCOG position statement on COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Covid 19 pandemic has led to significant mortality and long term morbidity globally. Pregnant women are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID 19 infection. There is an urgent need for all health authorities and Governments to offer vaccination to all pregnant women especially those with high risk pregnancy.

Equity in coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine development and deployment.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic exposed weaknesses in multiple domains and widened gender-based inequalities across the world. It also stimulated extraordinary scientific achievement by bringing vaccines to the public in less than a year. In this article, we discuss the implications of current vaccination guidance for pregnant and lactating women, if their exclusion from the first wave of vaccine trials was justified, and if a change in the current vaccine development pathway is necessary. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first vaccine regulatory approvals have been accompanied by inconsistent advice from public health, governmental, and professional authorities around the world. Denying vaccination to women who, although pregnant or breastfeeding, are fully capable of autonomous decision making is a throwback to a paternalistic era. Conversely, lack of evidence generated in a timely manner, upon which to make an informed decision, shifts responsibility from research sponsors and regulators and places the burden of decision making upon the woman and her healthcare advisor. The World Health Organization, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women, and others have highlighted the long-standing disadvantage experienced by women in relation to the development of vaccines and medicines. It is uncertain whether there was sufficient justification for excluding pregnant and lactating women from the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. In future, we recommend that regulators mandate plans that describe the development pathway for new vaccines and medicines that address the needs of women who are pregnant or lactating. These should incorporate, at the outset, a careful consideration of the balance of the risks of exclusion from or inclusion in initial studies, patient and public perspectives, details of "developmental and reproductive toxicity" studies, and approaches to collect data systematically from participants who are unknowingly pregnant at the time of exposure. This requires careful consideration of any previous knowledge about the mode of action of the vaccine and the likelihood of toxicity or teratogenicity. We also support the view that the default position should be a "presumption of inclusion," with exclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating only if justified on specific, not generic, grounds. Finally, we recommend closer coordination across countries with the aim of issuing consistent public health advice.