Reflective, pragmatic, and reactive decision-making by maternity service providers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic health system shock: a qualitative, grounded theory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women were identified as having particular vulnerability to severe symptomatology of SARS-CoV-2 infection, so maternity services significantly reconfigured their care provision. We examined the experiences and perceptions of maternity care staff who provided care during the pandemic in South London, United Kingdom - a region of high ethnic diversity with varied levels of social complexity. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study, as part of a service evaluation between August and November 2020, using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a range of staff (N = 29) working in maternity services. Data were analysed using Grounded Theory analysis appropriate to cross-disciplinary health research. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: Maternity healthcare professionals provided their views, experiences, and perceptions of delivering care during the pandemic. Analysis rendered three emergent themes regarding decision-making during reconfigured maternity service provision, organised into pathways: 1) 'Reflective decision-making'; 2) 'Pragmatic decision-making'; and 3) 'Reactive decision-making'. Whilst pragmatic decision-making was found to disrupt care, reactive-decision-making was perceived to devalue the care offered and provided. Alternatively, reflective decision-making, despite the difficult working conditions of the pandemic, was seen to benefit services, with regards to care of high-quality, sustainability of staff, and innovation within the service. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making within maternity care was found to take three forms - where at best changes to services could be innovative, at worst they could cause devaluation in care being delivered, and more often than not, these changes were disruptive. With regard to positive changes, healthcare providers identified staff empowerment, flexible working patterns (both for themselves and collectively as teams), personalised care delivery, and change-making in general, as key areas to capitalise on current and ongoing innovations borne out of the pandemic. Key learnings included a focus on care-related, meaningful listening and engagement of staff at all levels, in order to drive forward high-quality care and avoid care disruption and devaluation.

National surveillance data analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in England by women of reproductive age.

Women of reproductive age are a group of particular concern with regards to vaccine uptake, related to their unique considerations of menstruation, fertility, and pregnancy. To obtain vaccine uptake data specific to this group, we obtained vaccine surveillance data from the Office for National Statistics, linked with COVID-19 vaccination status from the National Immunisation Management Service, England, from 8 Dec 2020 to 15 Feb 2021; data from 13,128,525 such women at population-level, were clustered by age (18-29, 30-39, and 40-49 years), self-defined ethnicity (19 UK government categories), and index of multiple deprivation (IMD, geographically-defined IMD quintiles). Here we show that among women of reproductive age, older age, White ethnicity and being in the least-deprived index of multiple deprivation are each independently associated with higher vaccine uptake, for first and second doses; however, ethnicity exerts the strongest influence (and IMD the weakest). These findings should inform future vaccination public messaging and policy.

Clinical risk factors of adverse outcomes among women with COVID-19 in the pregnancy and postpartum period: A sequential, prospective meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This sequential, prospective meta-analysis (sPMA) sought to identify risk factors among pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 for adverse outcomes related to: disease severity, maternal morbidities, neonatal mortality and morbidity, adverse birth outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We prospectively invited study investigators to join the sPMA via professional research networks beginning in March 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies included those recruiting at least 25 consecutive cases of COVID-19 in pregnancy within a defined catchment area. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We included individual patient data from 21 participating studies. Data quality was assessed, and harmonized variables for risk factors and outcomes were constructed. Duplicate cases were removed. Pooled estimates for the absolute and relative risk of adverse outcomes comparing those with and without each risk factor were generated using a two-stage meta-analysis. RESULTS: We collected data from 33 countries and territories, including 21,977 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy or postpartum. We found that women with comorbidities (pre-existing diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease) versus those without were at higher risk for COVID-19 severity and pregnancy health outcomes (fetal death, preterm birth, low birthweight). Participants with COVID-19 and HIV were 1.74 times (95% CI: 1.12, 2.71) more likely to be admitted to the ICU. Pregnant women who were underweight before pregnancy were at higher risk of ICU admission (RR 5.53, 95% CI: 2.27, 13.44), ventilation (RR 9.36, 95% CI: 3.87, 22.63), and pregnancy-related death (RR 14.10, 95% CI: 2.83, 70.36). Pre-pregnancy obesity was also a risk factor for severe COVID-19 outcomes including ICU admission (RR 1.81, 95% CI: 1.26,2.60), ventilation (RR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.20,3.51), any critical care (RR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.28,2.77), and pneumonia (RR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.18,2.33). Anemic pregnant women with COVID-19 also had increased risk of ICU admission (RR 1.63, 95% CI: 1.25, 2.11) and death (RR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.15, 4.81). CONCLUSION: We found that pregnant women with comorbidities including diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease were at increased risk for severe COVID-19-related outcomes, maternal morbidities, and adverse birth outcomes. We also identified several less commonly-known risk factors, including HIV infection, pre-pregnancy underweight, and anemia. Although pregnant women are already considered a high-risk population, special priority for prevention and treatment should be given to pregnant women with these additional risk factors.

Navigating uncertainty alone: A grounded theory analysis of women's psycho-social experiences of pregnancy and childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic in London.

PROBLEM: Maternity care underwent substantial reconfiguration in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 posed an unprecedented public health crisis, risking population health and causing a significant health system shock. AIM: To explore the psycho-social experiences of women who received maternity care and gave birth in South London during the first 'lockdown'. METHODS: We recruited women (N = 23) to semi-structured interviews, conducted virtually. Data were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by hand. A Classical Grounded Theory Analysis was followed including line-by-line coding, focused coding, development of super-categories followed by themes, and finally the generation of a theory. FINDINGS: Iterative and inductive analysis generated six emergent themes, sorted into three dyadic pairs: 1 & 2: Lack of relational care vs. Good practice persisting during the pandemic; 3 & 4: Denying the embodied experience of pregnancy and birth vs. Trying to keep everyone safe; and 5 & 6: Removed from support network vs. Importance of being at home as a family. Together, these themes interact to form the theory: 'Navigating uncertainty alone'. DISCUSSION: Women's pregnancy and childbirth journeys during the pandemic were reported as having positive and negative experiences which would counteract one-another. Lack of relational care, denial of embodied experiences, and removal from support networks were counterbalanced by good practice which persisted, understanding staff were trying to keep everyone safe, and renewed importance in the family unit. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy can be an uncertain time for women. This was compounded by having to navigate their maternity journey alone during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adverse maternal, fetal, and newborn outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies. METHODS: We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.

Protocol for a sequential, prospective meta-analysis to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the pregnancy and postpartum periods.

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis.

WILL (When to Induce Labour to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): a multicentre randomised controlled trial - adaptations to deliver a timing-of-birth trial during the COVID-19 international pandemic.

BACKGROUND: As a pragmatic randomised timing-of-birth trial, WILL adapted its trial procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed here to inform post-pandemic trial methodology. METHODS: The trial (internal pilot) paused in March 2020, re-opened in July 2020, and is currently recruiting in 37 UK NHS consultant-led maternity units. We evaluated pandemic adaptations made to WILL processes and surveyed sites for their views of these changes (20 sites, videoconference). RESULTS: Despite 88% of sites favouring an electronic investigator site file (ISF), information technology requirements and clinical trial unit (CTU) operating procedures mandated the ongoing use of paper ISFs; site start-up delays resulted from restricted access to the CTU. Site initiation visits (SIVs) were conducted remotely; 50% of sites preferred remote SIVs and 44% felt that it was trial-dependent, while few preferred SIVs in-person as standard procedure. The Central team felt remote SIVs provided scheduling and attendance flexibility (for sites and trial staff), the option of recording discussions for missing or future staff, improved efficiency by having multiple sites attend, and time and cost savings; the negative impact on rapport-building and interaction was partially mitigated over time with more familiarity with technology and new ways-of-working. Two methods of remote consent were developed and used by 30/37 sites and for 54/156 recruits. Most (86%) sites using remote consenting felt it improved recruitment. For remote data monitoring (5 sites), advantages were primarily for the monitor (e.g. flexibility, no time constraints, reduced cost), and disadvantages primarily for the sites (e.g. document and access preparation, attendance at a follow-up meeting), but 81% of sites desired having the option of remote monitoring post-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID adaptations to WILL trial processes improved the flexibility of trial delivery, for Central and site staff, and participants. Flexibility to use these strategies should be retained post-pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77258279. Registered on 05 December 2018.

A global view of hypertensive disorders and diabetes mellitus during pregnancy.

Two important maternal cardiometabolic disorders (CMDs), hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP) (including pre-eclampsia) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), result in a large disease burden for pregnant individuals worldwide. A global consensus has not been reached about the diagnostic criteria for HDP and GDM, making it challenging to assess differences in their disease burden between countries and areas. However, both diseases show an unevenly distributed disease burden for regions with a low income or middle income, or low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), or regions with lower sociodemographic and human development indexes. In addition to many common clinical, demographic and behavioural risk factors, the development and clinical consequences of maternal CMDs are substantially influenced by the social determinants of health, such as systemic marginalization. Although progress has been occurring in the early screening and management of HDP and GDM, the accuracy and long-term effects of such screening and management programmes are still under investigation. In addition to pharmacological therapies and lifestyle modifications at the individual level, a multilevel approach in conjunction with multisector partnership should be adopted to tackle the public health issues and health inequity resulting from maternal CMDs. The current COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health service delivery, with women with maternal CMDs being particularly vulnerable to this public health crisis.

Precarity and preparedness during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A qualitative service evaluation of maternity healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has devastated populations, posing unprecedented challenges for healthcare services, staff and service-users. In the UK, rapid reconfiguration of maternity healthcare service provision changed the landscape of antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care. This study aimed to explore the experiences of maternity services staff who provided maternity care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic to inform future improvements in care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative interview service evaluation was undertaken at a single maternity service in an NHS Trust, South London. Respondents (n = 29) were recruited using a critical case purposeful sample of maternity services staff. Interviews were conducted using video-conferencing software, and were transcribed and analyzed using Grounded Theory Analysis appropriate for cross-disciplinary health research. The focus of analysis was on staff experiences of delivering maternity services and care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESULTS: A theory of "Precarity and Preparedness" was developed, comprising three main emergent themes: "Endemic precarity: A health system under pressure"; "A top-down approach to managing the health system shock"; and "From un(der)-prepared to future flourishing". CONCLUSIONS: Maternity services in the UK were under significant strain and were inherently precarious. This was exacerbated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which saw further disruption to service provision, fragmentation of care and pre-existing staff shortages. Positive changes are required to improve staff retention and team cohesion, and ensure patient-centered care remains at the heart of maternity care.

On race and ethnicity during a global pandemic: An 'imperfect mosaic' of maternal and child health services in ethnically-diverse South London, United Kingdom.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought racial and ethnic inequity into sharp focus, as Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic people were reported to have greater clinical vulnerability. During the pandemic, priority was given to ongoing, reconfigured maternity and children's healthcare. This study aimed to understand the intersection between race and ethnicity, and healthcare provision amongst maternity and children's healthcare professionals, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: A qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews (N = 53) was undertaken with maternity (n = 29; August-November 2020) and children's (n = 24; June-July 2021) healthcare professionals from an NHS Trust in ethnically-diverse South London, UK. Data pertinent to ethnicity and race were subject to Grounded Theory Analysis, whereby data was subjected to iterative coding and interpretive analysis. Using this methodology, data are compared between transcripts to generate lower and higher order codes, before super-categories are formed, which are finally worked into themes. The inter-relationship between these themes is interpreted as a final theory. Findings: Grounded Theory Analysis led to the theory: An 'Imperfect Mosaic', comprising four themes: (1) 'A System Set in Plaster'; (2) 'The Marginalised Majority'; (3) 'Self-Discharging Responsibility for Change-Making'; and (4) 'Slow Progress, Not No Progress'. The NHS was observed to be brittle, lacking plasticity to deliver change at pace. Overt racism based on skin colour has been replaced by micro-aggressions between in-groups and out-groups, defined not just by ethnicity, but by other social determinants. Contemporaneously, responsibility for health, wellbeing, and psychological safety in the workplace is discharged to, and accepted by, the individual. Interpretation: Our findings suggest three practicable solutions: (1) Representation of marginalised groups at all NHS levels; (2) Engagement in cultural humility which extends to other social factors; and (3) Collective action at system and individual levels, including prioritising equity over simplistic notions of equality. Funding: This service evaluation was supported by the King's College London King's Together Rapid COVID-19 Call, successfully awarded to Laura A. Magee, Sergio A. Silverio, Abigail Easter, & colleagues (reference:- 204823/Z/16/Z), as part of a rapid response call for research proposals. The King's Together Fund is a Wellcome Trust funded initiative.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

Safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy is a particular concern affecting vaccination uptake by this vulnerable group. Here we evaluated evidence from 23 studies including 117,552 COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant people, almost exclusively with mRNA vaccines. We show that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 7 days after second dose was 89·5% (95% CI 69·0-96·4%, 18,828 vaccinated pregnant people, I2 = 73·9%). The risk of stillbirth was significantly lower in the vaccinated cohort by 15% (pooled OR 0·85; 95% CI 0·73-0·99, 66,067 vaccinated vs. 424,624 unvaccinated, I2 = 93·9%). There was no evidence of a higher risk of adverse outcomes including miscarriage, earlier gestation at birth, placental abruption, pulmonary embolism, postpartum haemorrhage, maternal death, intensive care unit admission, lower birthweight Z-score, or neonatal intensive care unit admission (p > 0.05 for all). COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in pregnancy appears to be safe and is associated with a reduction in stillbirth.

An internally validated prediction model for critical COVID-19 infection and intensive care unit admission in symptomatic pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are at an increased risk of mortality and morbidity owing to COVID-19. Many studies have reported on the association of COVID-19 with pregnancy-specific adverse outcomes, but prediction models utilizing large cohorts of pregnant women are still lacking for estimating the risk of maternal morbidity and other adverse events. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to develop a prediction model to quantify the risk of progression to critical COVID-19 and intensive care unit admission in pregnant women with symptomatic infection. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 8 hospitals from 4 countries (the United Kingdom, Austria, Greece, and Turkey). The data extraction was from February 2020 until May 2021. Included were consecutive pregnant and early postpartum women (within 10 days of birth); reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was progression to critical illness requiring intensive care. The secondary outcomes included maternal death, preeclampsia, and stillbirth. The association between the primary outcome and 12 candidate predictors having a known association with severe COVID-19 in pregnancy was analyzed with log-binomial mixed-effects regression and reported as adjusted risk ratios. All the potential predictors were evaluated in 1 model and only the baseline factors in another. The predictive accuracy was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Of the 793 pregnant women who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were symptomatic, 44 (5.5%) were admitted to intensive care, of whom 10 died (1.3%). The 'mini-COvid Maternal Intensive Therapy' model included the following demographic and clinical variables available at disease onset: maternal age (adjusted risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.95; P=.015); body mass index (adjusted risk ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.66; P=.010); and diagnosis in the third trimester of pregnancy (adjusted risk ratio, 3.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-8.46; P=.001). The optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73. The 'full-COvid Maternal Intensive Therapy' model included body mass index (adjusted risk ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.95; P=.015), lower respiratory symptoms (adjusted risk ratio, 5.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-21.4; P=.007), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (adjusted risk ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.89; P<.001); and serum C-reactive protein (adjusted risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.44; P<.001), with an optimism-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85. Neither model showed signs of a poor fit. Categorization as high-risk by either model was associated with a shorter diagnosis to intensive care unit admission interval (log-rank test P<.001, both), higher maternal death (5.2% vs 0.2%; P<.001), and preeclampsia (5.7% vs 1.0%; P<.001). A spreadsheet calculator is available for risk estimation. CONCLUSION: At presentation with symptomatic COVID-19, pregnant and recently postpartum women can be stratified into high- and low-risk for progression to critical disease, even where resources are limited. This can support the nature and place of care. These models also highlight the independent risk for severe disease associated with obesity and should further emphasize that even in the absence of other comorbidities, vaccination is particularly important for these women. Finally, the model also provides useful information for policy makers when prioritizing national vaccination programs to quickly protect those at the highest risk of critical and fatal COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: coverage and safety.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding a potential surge of COVID-19 in pregnancy, secondary to the rising numbers of COVID-19 in the community, easing of societal restrictions, and vaccine hesitancy. Although COVID-19 vaccination is now offered to all pregnant women in the United Kingdom; limited data exist on its uptake and safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the uptake and safety of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cohort study of pregnant women who gave birth at St George's University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom, between March 1, 2020, and July 4, 2021. The primary outcome was uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and its determinants. The secondary outcomes were perinatal safety outcomes. Data were collected on COVID-19 vaccination uptake, vaccination type, gestational age at vaccination, and maternal characteristics, including age, parity, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation score, and comorbidities. Further data were collected on perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth (fetal death at ≥24 weeks' gestation), preterm birth, fetal and congenital abnormalities, and intrapartum complications. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of women who received the vaccine were compared with that of a matched cohort of women with balanced propensity scores. Effect magnitudes of vaccination on perinatal outcomes were reported as mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Factors associated with antenatal vaccination were assessed with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Data were available for 1328 pregnant women of whom 140 received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine before giving birth and 1188 women who did not; 85.7% of those vaccinated received their vaccine in the third trimester of pregnancy and 14.3% in the second trimester of pregnancy. Of those vaccinated, 127 (90.7%) received a messenger RNA vaccine and 13 (9.3%) a viral vector vaccine. There was evidence of reduced vaccine uptake in younger women (P=.001), women with high levels of deprivation (ie, fifth quintile of the index of multiple deprivation; P=.008), and women of Afro-Caribbean or Asian ethnicity compared with women of White ethnicity (P<.001). Women with prepregnancy diabetes mellitus had increased vaccine uptake (P=.008). In the multivariable model the fifth deprivation quintile (most deprived) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.10; P=.003) and Afro-Caribbean ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.85; P=.044) were significantly associated with lower antenatal vaccine uptake, whereas prepregnancy diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with higher antenatal vaccine uptake (adjusted odds ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-83.2; P=.014). In a propensity score-matched cohort, the rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes of 133 women who received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy were similar to that of unvaccinated pregnant women (P>.05 for all): stillbirth (0.0% vs 0.2%), fetal abnormalities (2.2% vs 2.5%), postpartum hemorrhage (9.8% vs 9.0%), cesarean delivery (30.8% vs 34.1%), small for gestational age (12.0% vs 12.8%), maternal high-dependency unit or intensive care admission (6.0% vs 4.0%), or neonatal intensive care unit admission (5.3% vs 5.0%). Intrapartum pyrexia (3.7% vs 1.0%; P=.046) was significantly increased but the borderline statistical significance was lost after excluding women with antenatal COVID-19 infection (P=.079). Mixed-effects Cox regression showed that vaccination was not significantly associated with birth at <40 weeks' gestation (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23; P=.624). CONCLUSION: Of pregnant women eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, less than one-third accepted COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, and they experienced similar pregnancy outcomes with unvaccinated pregnant women. There was lower uptake among younger women, non-White ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic background. This study has contributed to the body of evidence that having COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy does not alter perinatal outcomes. Clear communication to improve awareness among pregnant women and healthcare professionals on vaccine safety is needed, alongside strategies to address vaccine hesitancy. These strategies include postvaccination surveillance to gather further data on pregnancy outcomes, particularly after first-trimester vaccination, and long-term infant follow-up.

Women's experiences of maternity service reconfiguration during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore women's experiences of maternity service reconfiguration during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: South London, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Women (N=23) who gave birth between March and August 2020 in one of the ten South London maternity hospitals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted (N=23), via video-conferencing software. Transcribed interviews were analysed 'by hand' using Microsoft Word. Template analysis was selected to code, analyse, and interpret data, according to the findings of a recently-published national survey of maternity service reconfiguration across the UK in response to COVID-19. FINDINGS: Three main themes emerged through analysis: (i) Disruption to In-Person Care and Increased Virtual Care Provision, (ii) Changes to Labour and Birth Preferences and Plans, (iii) Advice for Navigating Maternity Services During a Pandemic. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Women reported mixed views on the reduction in scheduled in-person appointments. The increase in remote care, especially via telephone, was not well endorsed by women. Furthermore, women reported an under-reliance on healthcare professionals for support, rather turning to family. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We provide insight into the experiences of women who received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings should inform healthcare policy to build back better maternity care services after the pandemic.

Global changes in maternity care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on healthcare systems globally, with a worrying increase in adverse maternal and foetal outcomes. We aimed to assess the changes in maternity healthcare provision and healthcare-seeking by pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of the pandemic on provision of, access to and attendance at maternity services (CRD42020211753). We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from January 1st, 2020 to April 17th 2021 for controlled observational studies and research letters reporting primary data comparing maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare delivery during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Case reports and series, systematic literature reviews, and pre-print studies were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on comparable outcomes that were reported in two or more studies. Data were combined using random-effects meta-analysis, using risk ratios (RR) or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). FINDINGS: Of 4743 citations identified, 56 were included in the systematic review, and 21 in the meta-analysis. We identified a significant decrease in the number of antenatal clinic visits (IRR 0614, 95% CI 0486-0776, P<00001, I2=54.6%) and unscheduled care visits (IRR 0741, 95% CI 0602-0911, P = 00046, I2=00%) per week, and an increase in virtual or remote antenatal care (IRR 4656 95% CI 7762-2794, P<00001, I2=90.6%) and hospitalisation of unscheduled attendees (RR 1214, 95% CI 1118-1319, P<00001, I2=00%). There was a decrease in the use of GA for category 1 Caesarean sections (CS) (RR 0529, 95% CI 0407-0690, P<00001, I2=00%). There was no significant change in intrapartum epidural use (P = 00896) or the use of GA for elective CS (P = 079). INTERPRETATION: Reduced maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic has been global, and must be considered as potentially contributing to worsening of pregnancy outcomes observed during the pandemic.