COVID Vaccine Information Sources Utilized by Female Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines excluded individuals with active reproductive needs (attempting to conceive, currently pregnant, and/or lactating). Women comprise three-quarters of healthcare workers in the United States-an occupational field among the first to receive the vaccine. Professional medical and government organizations have encouraged shared decision-making and access to vaccination among those with active reproductive needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the information sources used by pregnancy-capable healthcare workers for information about the COVID-19 vaccines and to compare the self-reported "most important" source by the respondents' active reproductive needs, if any. STUDY DESIGN: This was a web-based national survey of female, US-based healthcare workers in January 2021. Recruitment was done using social media and subsequent sharing via word of mouth. We classified the respondents into 6 groups on the basis of self-reported reproductive needs as follows: (1) preventing pregnancy, (2) attempting pregnancy, (3) currently pregnant, (4) lactating, (5) attempting pregnancy and lactating, and (6) currently pregnant and lactating. We provided respondents with a list of information sources (friends, family, obstetrician-gynecologists, pediatrician, news, social media, government organizations, their employer, and "other") and asked respondents which source(s) they used when looking for information about the vaccine and their most important source. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the information sources and compared the endorsement of government organizations and obstetrician-gynecologists, which were the most important information source between reproductive groups, using the chi-square test. The effect size was calculated using Cramér V. RESULTS: Our survey had 11,405 unique respondents: 5846 (51.3%) were preventing pregnancy, 955 (8.4%) were attempting pregnancy, 2196 (19.3%) were currently pregnant, 2250 (19.7%) were lactating, 67 (0.6%) were attempting pregnancy and lactating, and 91 (0.8%) were currently pregnant and lactating. The most endorsed information sources were government organizations (88.7%), employers (48.5%), obstetrician-gynecologists (44.9%), and social media (39.6%). Considering the most important information source, the distribution of respondents endorsing government organizations was different between reproductive groups (P<.001); it was most common among respondents preventing pregnancy (62.6%) and least common among those currently pregnant (31.5%). We observed an inverse pattern among the respondents endorsing an obstetrician-gynecologist as the most important source; the source was most common among currently pregnant respondents (51.4%) and least common among those preventing pregnancy (5.8%), P<.001. The differences in the endorsement of social media as an information source between groups were significant but had a small effect size. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers use government and professional medical organizations for information. Respondents attempting pregnancy and those pregnant and/or lactating are more likely to use social media and an obstetrician-gynecologist as information sources for vaccine decision-making. These data can inform public health messaging and counseling for clinicians.

Characterizing initial COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among pregnancy-capable healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination roll-out because of the high occupational risk. Vaccine trials excluded individuals who were trying to conceive and those who are pregnant and lactating, necessitating vaccine decision-making in the absence of data specific to this population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the initial attitudes about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy-capable healthcare workers by reproductive status and occupational exposure. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a structured survey distributed via social media of US-based healthcare workers involved in patient care since March 2020 who were pregnancy-capable (biologic female sex without history of sterilization or hysterectomy) from January 8, 2021 to January 31, 2021. Participants were asked about their desire to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and their perceived safety of the COVID-19 vaccine using 5-point Likert items with 1 corresponding to "I strongly don't want the vaccine" or "very unsafe for me" and 5 corresponding to "I strongly want the vaccine" or "very safe for me." We categorized participants into the following 2 groups: (1) reproductive intent (preventing pregnancy vs attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, or currently lactating), and (2) perceived COVID-19 occupational risk (high vs low). We used descriptive statistics to characterize the respondents and their attitudes about the vaccine. Comparisons between reproductive and COVID-19 risk groups were conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Our survey included 11,405 pregnancy-capable healthcare workers: 51.3% were preventing pregnancy (n=5846) and 48.7% (n=5559) were attempting pregnancy, currently pregnant, and/or lactating. Most respondents (n=8394, 73.6%) had received a vaccine dose at the time of survey completion. Most participants strongly desired vaccination (75.3%) and very few were strongly averse (1.5%). Although the distribution of responses was significantly different between respondents preventing pregnancy and those attempting conception or were pregnant and/or lactating and also between respondents with a high occupational risk and those with a lower occupational risk of COVID-19, the effect sizes were small and the distribution was the same for each group (median, 5; interquartile range, 4-5). CONCLUSION: Most of the healthcare workers desired vaccination. Negative feelings toward vaccination were uncommon but were significantly higher among those attempting pregnancy and those who are pregnant and lactating and also among those with a lower perceived occupational risk of contracting COVID-19, although the effect size was small. Understanding healthcare workers' attitudes toward vaccination may help guide interventions to improve vaccine education and uptake in the general population.

Changes in the Antenatal Utilization of High-Risk Obstetric Services and Stillbirth Rate during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-related changes in the antenatal utilization of high-risk obstetric services. Our secondary objective was to characterize change in stillbirth rate during the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational study performed at a single, tertiary care center. Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) visits, ultrasounds, and antenatal tests of fetal well-being during the pandemic epoch (2020), which spans the first 12 weeks of the year to include pandemic onset and implementation of mitigation efforts, were compared with the same epoch of the three preceding years visually and using general linear models to account for week and year effect. An analysis of stillbirth rate comparing the pandemic time period to prepandemic was also performed. RESULTS: While there were decreased MFM visits and antenatal tests of fetal well-being during the pandemic epoch compared with prepandemic epochs, only the decrease in MFM visits by year was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The stillbirth rate during the pandemic epoch was not significantly different when compared with the prepandemic period and accounting for both week (p = 0.286) and year (p = 0.643) effect. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant decrease in MFM visits, whereas obstetric ultrasounds and antenatal tests of fetal well-being remained unchanged. While we observed no change in the stillbirth rate compared with the prepandemic epoch, our study design and sample size preclude us from making assumptions of association. Our findings may support future work investigating how changes in prenatal care for high-risk obstetric patients influence perinatal outcomes. KEY POINTS: · MFM visits significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic epoch.. · The overall stillbirth rate during the COVID-19 pandemic epoch was not significantly changed.. · Larger studies are needed to capitalize on these changes to evaluate rare outcomes such as stillbirth..

Offering onsite COVID-19 vaccination to high-risk obstetrical patients: initial findings.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate effect on pregnant women, with higher rates of viral infection and disease severity.1 The development of highly effective vaccines has significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission and clinical disease.2 However, vaccine uptake has been low in the pregnant population.3 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance suggests that limited vaccine access, not vaccine hesitancy, has driven the lower uptake rates in at-risk populations.4 We describe our experience with vaccination uptake rates among high-risk obstetrical patients before and after onsite BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccination availability in outpatient clinics as part of a pilot program to improve vaccine access among pregnant patients. STUDY DESIGN: This was a quality improvement project at a single academic medical center. Onsite vaccination was available once a week at 2 high-risk obstetrical clinics staffed by obstetrical residents, maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) fellows, and MFM attendings were selected for our vaccine pilot program. Onsite vaccinations were immediately available for use in the clinic starting May 11, 2021. Data were collected over a 4-week period (April 27, 2021, to May 20, 2021), which included 4 clinic days before onsite vaccine availability (April 27, 2021 to May 10, 2021) and 4 days with onsite vaccine availability (May 11, 2021, to May 20, 2021). Patients were considered exposed to onsite vaccination if they had any clinic visits during the latter 2 weeks of the study period. All patients were counseled by providers at each visit using our institution's standardized COVID-19 vaccination discussion tool designed for pregnant and breastfeeding patients.5 Counseling was documented in each patient's chart per the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Before and throughout the study period, pregnancy was listed as a qualifying condition for priority vaccination in Missouri and Illinois. At this time, vaccinations were readily available in the local area surrounding our clinical space. Data on vaccine administration were collected via the Missouri and Illinois state databases over a period of 1 month after the pilot program was closed, allowing for the collection of data on patients who pursued vaccination offsite for scheduling or personal reasons. This project was deemed exempt by the Office for Human Research Protections. RESULTS: We reviewed data from 124 clinic visits, where a total of 93 individual patients were seen in the 4-week period; 6 had previously been vaccinated at external sites and the remaining 87 were eligible (Figure). The majority of our patient population was non-Hispanic Black women with public or no insurance (Table). Of the 32 eligible patients seen and counseled before onsite vaccination availability, 1 (3%) proceeded to receive the vaccination offsite. Of the 55 eligible patients seen and counseled after onsite vaccination availability, 2 (3%) proceeded with onsite vaccination and an additional 4 (7%) proceeded with vaccination offsite. Onsite vaccination availability did not significantly increase the vaccination rates (3% vs 11%; P=.22). Of the 55 eligible patients counseled during onsite vaccination availability, 25 were seen and counseled exclusively during the onsite vaccination pilot period and none of these patients accepted onsite vaccination or pursued vaccination offsite. CONCLUSION: Because only 3% of eligible, high-risk obstetrical patients proceeded with onsite vaccination, our experience suggests that vaccine hesitancy, not availability, is a critical driver of the low vaccination rates in this population. Although a larger sample size may have demonstrated statistical difference, the overall low vaccination uptake rate forced the closure of our pilot program over concerns for wasted vaccination doses. In a population at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, only 14% of our study population was vaccinated, whereas Missouri reported a 41% vaccination rate during this time.6 These findings suggest that increased access alone may not improve vaccination rates in obstetrical patients even after counseling by expert clinicians. These findings are limited by the pre/post nature of the comparison, exposing the sample to bias as vaccination recommendations and population sentiment was rapidly evolving during this time period. However, the consistency of counseling and patient population provided by a single clinical setting limited other sources of bias during the study period. Vaccine hesitancy is multifactorial and complex and urgently requires more evaluation in this high-risk population. Vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy is well documented, but early reports suggest that the COVID-19 vaccination uptake rate is markedly lower than that of other vaccines during pregnancy. Our finding that none of the women who were seen exclusively during the onsite vaccination period accepted vaccination may suggest that repeat clinic visits and the associated establishment of rapport and trust is a vital part of vaccine decision making. Earlier intervention, before patient views on novel therapeutics such as vaccinations can be formulated and fixed, may aid in uptake. Further qualitative work and inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine trials is an initial step.

Pregnancy as a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 using standardized clinical criteria.

BACKGROUND: As of November 18, 2020, more than 11 million people have been infected with coronavirus disease 2019 and almost 250,000 people have died from the disease in the United States, less than 1 year since its discovery. Although literature is beginning to emerge on pregnancy as a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019, these studies are heterogeneous and use primary outcomes such as intensive care unit admission or hospitalization as surrogate markers that may subject analyses to misclassification bias in pregnant patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 among pregnant women with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 compared with nonpregnant women using nonadmission-based, standardized clinical criteria for severe disease. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of women aged 13 to 45 years and diagnosed as having symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 between May 28, 2020, and July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was severe coronavirus disease 2019 as defined by 2 sets of nonadmission-based, clinical criteria: the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement and the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team. Adjusted risk ratios were estimated using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 262 women aged 13 to 45 years with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019, 22 (8.4%) were pregnant and 240 (91.6%) were nonpregnant. After adjusting for covariates potentially associated with the primary outcome, symptomatic pregnant women were at a significantly increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 compared with nonpregnant women using both the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (adjusted relative risk, 3.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-7.01) and Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team (adjusted relative risk, 5.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-17.31) criteria. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy significantly increases the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 as defined by nonadmission-based, clinical criteria.

False-negative testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: consideration in obstetrical care.

Because the obstetrical population seems to have a high proportion of asymptomatic patients who are carriers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, universal testing has been proposed as a strategy to risk-stratify all obstetrical admissions and guide infection prevention protocols. Here, we describe a case of a critically ill obstetrical patient with all the clinical symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 and 3 false-negative results of nasopharyngeal swabs for molecular testing. We review and discuss the uncertain clinical characteristics of current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 molecular testing and the implications of false-negative results in the obstetrical population.