Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
BMJ Sex Reprod Health ; 2023 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251523

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Contraceptive services were significantly disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Britain. We investigated contraception-related health inequalities in the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: Natsal-COVID Wave 2 surveyed 6658 adults aged 18-59 years between March and April 2021, using quotas and weighting to achieve quasi-representativeness. Our analysis included sexually active participants aged 18-44 years, described as female at birth. We analysed contraception use, contraceptive switching due to the pandemic, contraceptive service access, and pregnancy plannedness. RESULTS: Of 1488 participants, 1619 were at risk of unplanned pregnancy, of whom 54.1% (51.0%-57.1%) reported routinely using effective contraception in the past year. Among all participants, 14.3% (12.5%-16.3%) reported switching or stopping contraception due to the pandemic. 3.2% (2.0%-5.1%) of those using effective methods pre-pandemic switched to less effective methods, while 3.8% (2.5%-5.9%) stopped. 29.3% (26.9%-31.8%) of at-risk participants reported seeking contraceptive services, of whom 16.4% (13.0%-20.4%) reported difficulty accessing services. Clinic closures and cancelled appointments were commonly reported pandemic-related reasons for difficulty accessing services. This unmet need was associated with younger age, diverse sexual identities and anxiety symptoms. Of 199 pregnancies, 6.6% (3.9%-11.1%) scored as 'unplanned'; less planning was associated with younger age, lower social grade and unemployment. CONCLUSIONS: Just under a third of participants sought contraceptive services during the pandemic and most were successful, indicating resilience and adaptability of service delivery. However, one in six reported an unmet need due to the pandemic. COVID-induced inequalities in service access potentially exacerbated existing reproductive health inequalities. These should be addressed in the post-pandemic period and beyond.

2.
Trials ; 24(1): 225, 2023 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2280376

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are significant knowledge gaps regarding the effectiveness of serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion (SPEBT) for pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD). The protocol for the randomised feasibility trial assessing SPEBT versus usual care in women with SCD (TAPS2 trial) has previously been published. This publication outlines the statistical and qualitative analysis plan for the study. METHODS AND DESIGN: TAPS2 is a randomised two-arm phase 2 feasibility trial with a nested qualitative study and health economic evaluation. Up to 50 pregnant women with SCD and a singleton pregnancy will be recruited and individually randomised to either SPEBT approximately every 6-10 weeks until delivery (intervention arm) or to usual care (control arm). Information will be collected on a range of feasibility and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Due to the impact of COVID-19 on study recruitment, the initial study period of 24 months was extended to 48 months. Other protocol updates designed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19-related disruption included allowing for remote consent and conducting all qualitative interviews by telephone. The primary outcome for the trial is the overall recruitment rate. The number of women screened, eligible, consented, randomised and withdrawn will be summarised as a CONSORT flow diagram. Differences in clinical outcomes will additionally be presented as an initial assessment of efficacy and to inform sample size calculations for a future definitive trial. Qualitative interviews with trial participants and clinicians will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis; data from interviews with participants who declined to participate in the trial will be extracted and incorporated into summary tables to report key findings. The health economic analysis plan is not covered by this update. CONCLUSION: The publication of this analysis plan is designed to aid transparency and to reduce the potential for reporting bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH registry ( www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ), registration number NCT03975894 (registered 05/06/19); ISRCTN ( www.isrctn.com ), registration number ISRCTN52684446 (retrospectively registered 02/08/19).


Subject(s)
Anemia, Sickle Cell , COVID-19 , Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , Feasibility Studies , Treatment Outcome , Anemia, Sickle Cell/diagnosis , Anemia, Sickle Cell/therapy , Exchange Transfusion, Whole Blood
3.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 20625, 2022 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2133646

ABSTRACT

It remains unclear whether the rate of fetal death has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on fetal death in Sweden (449,347 births), Denmark (290,857 pregnancies) and Norway (261,057 pregnancies) using robust population-based registry data. We used Cox regression to assess the impact of the implementation of pandemic mitigation measures on March 12th, 2020, on miscarriage (fetal loss before gestational week 22) and stillbirth (fetal loss after gestational week 22). A total of 11% of 551,914 pregnancies in Denmark and Norway ended in miscarriage, while the proportion of stillbirths among 937,174 births across the three countries was 0.3%. There was no difference in the risk of fetal death during the year following pandemic mitigation measures. For miscarriage, the combined hazard ratio (HR) for Norway and Denmark was 1.01 (95% CI 0.98, 1.03), and for stillbirth, the combined HR for all three countries was 0.99 (95% CI 0.89, 1.09). We observed a slightly decreased risk of miscarriage during the first 4 months, with an HR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.90, 0.99) after lockdown. In conclusion, the risk of fetal death did not change after the implementation of COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures in the three Scandinavian countries.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Spontaneous , COVID-19 , Female , Pregnancy , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Stillbirth/epidemiology , Abortion, Spontaneous/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Sweden/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Registries , Norway/epidemiology , Denmark/epidemiology
4.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 226(4): 550.e1-550.e22, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509495

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although some studies have reported a decrease in preterm birth following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the incidences of preterm birth before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures in Scandinavian countries using robust population-based registry data. STUDY DESIGN: This was a registry-based difference-in-differences study using births from January 2014 through December 2020 in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The changes in the preterm birth (<37 weeks) rates before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures (set to March 12, 2020) were compared with the changes in preterm birth before and after March 12 from 2014 to 2019. The differences per 1000 births were calculated for 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-week intervals before and after March 12. The secondary analyses included medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, and very preterm (<32 weeks) birth. RESULTS: A total of 1,519,521 births were included in this study. During the study period, 5.6% of the births were preterm in Norway and Sweden, and 5.7% were preterm in Denmark. There was a seasonal variation in the incidence of preterm birth, with the highest incidence during winter. In all the 3 countries, there was a slight overall decline in preterm births from 2014 to 2020. There was no consistent evidence of a change in the preterm birth rates following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures, with difference-in-differences estimates ranging from 3.7 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -3.8 to 11.1) for the first 2 weeks after March 12, 2020, to -1.8 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -4.6 to 1.1) in the 16 weeks after March 12, 2020. Similarly, there was no evidence of an impact on medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, or very preterm birth. CONCLUSION: Using high-quality national data on births in 3 Scandinavian countries, each of which implemented different approaches to address the pandemic, there was no evidence of a decline in preterm births following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Premature Birth , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Denmark/epidemiology , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pandemics/prevention & control , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Registries , Sweden/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL