Pregnancy Intention, Changes in Pregnancy Intention, and Pregnancy Incidence Among Female Nurses in North America.

Importance: Pregnancy intention assessment is a key element of preconception and contraceptive care. The association between a single screening question and the incidence of pregnancy is unknown. Objective: To prospectively evaluate the dynamics of pregnancy intention and pregnancy incidence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study (the Nurses' Health Study 3) was conducted from June 1, 2010, to April 1, 2022, in 18 376 premenopausal, nonpregnant female nurses aged 19 to 44 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pregnancy intention and pregnancy status were assessed at baseline and approximately every 3 to 6 months thereafter. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between pregnancy intention and pregnancy incidence. Results: A total of 18 376 premenopausal, nonpregnant women (mean [SD] age, 32.4 [6.5] years) participated in the study. At baseline, 1008 women (5.5%) were trying to conceive, 2452 (13.3%) were contemplating pregnancy within 1 year, and the remaining 14 916 (81.2%) were neither trying to conceive nor thought they would be pregnant within 1 year. A total of 1314 pregnancies were documented within 12 months of pregnancy intention assessment. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy was 38.8% in women actively trying to conceive (median [IQR] time to pregnancy, 3.3 [1.5-6.7] months), 27.6% in women contemplating pregnancy (median [IQR] time to pregnancy, 6.7 [4.2-9.3] months), and 1.7% in women neither trying to conceive nor contemplating pregnancy (median [IQR] time to pregnancy, 7.8 [5.2-10.5] months) among those who became pregnant. Women who were actively trying to conceive were 23.1 times (95% CI, 19.5-27.4 times) and women who were contemplating pregnancy were 13.0 times (95% CI, 11.1-15.2 times) more likely to conceive within 12 months than women who were neither attempting nor contemplating pregnancy. Among women contemplating pregnancy at baseline who did not get pregnant during follow up, 18.8% were actively trying and 27.6% were not trying by 12 months. Conversely, only 4.9% of women neither trying to conceive nor contemplating pregnancy within 1 year at baseline changed pregnancy intention during follow up. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of reproductive-aged nurses in North America, pregnancy intention was highly fluid among women who were contemplating pregnancy but relatively stable among women trying to conceive and women who were neither trying to conceive nor contemplating pregnancy. Pregnancy intention was strongly associated with pregnancy incidence, but the median time to pregnancy points to a relatively short time window to initiate preconception care.

Association of laparoscopically-confirmed endometriosis with long COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Women are at greater risk than men of developing chronic inflammatory conditions and "long COVID." However, few gynecologic health risk factors for long COVID-19 have been identified. Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disorder associated with chronic inflammation, immune dysregulation, and comorbid presentation with autoimmune and clotting disorders, all of which are pathophysiological mechanisms proposed for long COVID-19. Therefore, we hypothesized that women with a history of endometriosis may be at greater risk of developing long COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the association between history of endometriosis before SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk of long COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: We followed 46,579 women from 2 ongoing prospective cohort studies-the Nurses' Health Study II and the Nurses' Health Study 3-who participated in a series of COVID-19-related surveys administered from April 2020 to November 2022. Laparoscopic diagnosis of endometriosis was documented prospectively in main cohort questionnaires before the pandemic (1993-2020) with high validity. SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed by antigen, polymerase chain reaction, or antibody test) and long-term COVID-19 symptoms (≥4 weeks) defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were self-reported during follow-up. Among individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, we fit Poisson regression models to assess the associations between endometriosis and risk of long COVID-19 symptoms, with adjustment for potential confounding variables (demographics, body mass index, smoking status, history of infertility, and history of chronic diseases). RESULTS: Among 3650 women in our sample with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infections during follow-up, 386 (10.6%) had a history of endometriosis with laparoscopic confirmation, and 1598 (43.8%) reported experiencing long COVID-19 symptoms. Most women were non-Hispanic White (95.4%), with a median age of 59 years (interquartile range, 44-65). Women with a history of laparoscopically-confirmed endometriosis had a 22% greater risk of developing long COVID-19 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.42) compared with those who had never been diagnosed with endometriosis. The association was stronger when we defined long COVID-19 as having symptoms for ≥8 weeks (risk ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.50). We observed no statistically significant differences in the relationship between endometriosis and long COVID-19 by age, infertility history, or comorbidity with uterine fibroids, although there was a suggestive trend indicating that the association may be stronger in women aged <50 years (<50 years: risk ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.88; ≥50 years: risk ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.41). Among persons who developed long COVID-19, women with endometriosis reported on average 1 additional long-term symptom compared with women without endometriosis. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that those with a history of endometriosis may be at modestly increased risk for long COVID-19. Healthcare providers should be aware of endometriosis history when treating patients for signs of persisting symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Future studies should investigate the potential biological pathways underlying these associations.

Intimate Partner Violence, Mental Health Symptoms, and Modifiable Health Factors in Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence (IPV) increased. Associations between IPV and mental health symptoms and modifiable health factors early in the pandemic have yet to be explored. Objective: To prospectively investigate the association of IPV with greater risk of mental health symptoms and adverse health factors during the COVID-19 pandemic in 3 cohorts of female participants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used observational data from 3 prospective, population-based, longitudinal cohorts in the US: the Nurses' Health Study II, Growing Up Today Study, and Nurses' Health Study 3. Data analyzed included baseline and follow-up survey responses about IPV experiences early in the pandemic (March-September 2020); mental health domains of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS); and modifiable health factors (May 2020-October 2021). Female participants (both health care professionals and non-health care workers) aged 21 to 60 years from the 3 cohorts were included in the full analytic sample. Exposures: Experience of IPV measured by the Relationship Assessment Tool and fear of partner. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mental health symptoms, including depression, anxiety, and PTSS, and modifiable health factors, including sleep duration, sleep quality, physical activity, alcohol use, and use of alcohol or other substances to cope with stress. Results: The full analytic sample included 13 597 female participants with a mean (SD) age of 44 (10.6) years. Accounting for sociodemographic factors and prepandemic mental health symptoms and correcting for multiple testing, experiencing IPV was associated with higher endorsement of depression (odds ratio [OR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.38-1.50), anxiety (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.26-1.36), and PTSS (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.29) in random-effects meta-analyses across the 3 cohorts. The IPV experience was also associated with poorer sleep quality (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.16-1.26), shorter sleep duration (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19), increased use of alcohol (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14), and use of alcohol or other substances to cope with stress (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) across all cohorts as well as decreased physical activity (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) in the Nurses' Health Study II only. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of the study showed that IPV experiences at the start of the pandemic were associated with worse mental health symptoms and modifiable health factors for female participants younger than 60 years. Screening and interventions for IPV and related health factors are needed to prevent severe, long-term health consequences.

Novel Methods for Leveraging Large Cohort Studies for Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Research.

Qualitative research methods, while rising in popularity, are still a relatively underutilized tool in public health research. Usually reserved for small samples, qualitative research techniques have the potential to enhance insights gained from large questionnaires and cohort studies, both deepening the interpretation of quantitative data and generating novel hypotheses that might otherwise be missed by standard approaches; this is especially true where exposures and outcomes are new, understudied, or rapidly changing, as in a pandemic. However, methods for the conduct of qualitative research within large samples are underdeveloped. Here, we describe a novel method of applying qualitative research methods to free-text comments collected in a large epidemiologic questionnaire. Specifically, this method includes: 1) a hierarchical system of coding through content analysis; 2) a qualitative data management application; and 3) an adaptation of Cohen's κ and percent agreement statistics for use by a team of coders, applying multiple codes per record from a large codebook. The methods outlined in this paper may help direct future applications of qualitative and mixed methods within large cohort studies.

Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the associations of prepandemic physical activity and sedentary behavior with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity, particularly milder illness, have been limited. METHODS: We used data from 43,913 participants within the Nurses' Health Study II and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study who responded to periodic COVID-related surveys from May 2020 through March 2021. History of physical activity from the prepandemic period was assessed as the metabolic equivalents of task (MET)-hours per week of various activities of different intensity and sedentary behavior assessed from reports of time spent sitting from questionnaires completed 2016-2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity, as well as predicted COVID-19 defined using a validated symptom-based algorithm. RESULTS: Higher levels of prepandemic physical activity were associated with a lower risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared to participants with <3 MET-hours per week, the multivariable-adjusted OR was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.99; P trend =.07) for those with ≥27 MET-hours per week. Higher physical activity levels were also associated with lower risk of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.99; P trend = .05) and predicted COVID-19 (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.97; P trend = .01). Longer time sitting at home watching TV (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.97) or for other tasks (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.92) was associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support a protective association between prepandemic physical activity and lower risk and severity of COVID-19.

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Factors Affecting Hesitancy Among US Nurses, March-June 2021.

Objectives. To characterize COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy among US nurses. Methods. We surveyed nurses in 3 national cohorts during spring 2021. Participants who indicated that they did not plan to receive or were unsure whether they planned to receive the vaccine were considered vaccine hesitant. Results. Among 32 426 female current and former nurses, 93% had been or planned to be vaccinated. After adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and occupational variables, vaccine hesitancy was associated with lower education, living in the South, and working in a group care or home health setting. Those who experienced COVID-19 deaths and those reporting personal or household vulnerability to COVID-19 were less likely to be hesitant. Having contracted COVID-19 doubled the risk of vaccine hesitancy (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.85, 2.53). Reasons for hesitancy that were common among nurses who did not plan to receive the vaccine were religion/ethics, belief that the vaccine was ineffective, and lack of concern about COVID-19; those who were unsure often cited concerns regarding side effects or medical reasons or reported that they had had COVID-19. Conclusions. Vaccine hesitancy was unusual and stemmed from specific concerns. Public Health Implications. Targeted messaging and outreach might reduce vaccine hesitancy. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(11):1620-1629. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307050).

A qualitative analysis of psychosocial stressors and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline healthcare personnel in the United States.

There is a dearth of qualitative studies exploring the lived experiences of frontline healthcare personnel (HCP) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We examined workplace stressors, psychological manifestations of said stressors, and coping strategies reported through coded open-text responses from 1024 online surveys completed over two months by 923 HCP participating in three nationwide cohorts from Spring 2020. Our findings suggest that risk, job insecurity, frustration with hospital administration, inadequate access to personal protective equipment, and witnessing patient suffering and death contributed to deteriorating mental and physical health. Negative health impacts included the onset or exacerbation of anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms, including weight fluctuation, fatigue, and migraines. Coping mechanisms included substance use and food consumption, meditation and wellness, fitness, socializing with loved ones, and religious activities. Insights garnered from participants' responses will enable more personalized and effective psychosocial crisis prevention and intervention for frontline HCP in future health crises.

A prospective study of the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination with changes in usual menstrual cycle characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Despite anecdotal reports, the impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination on menstrual health have not been systemically investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the associations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination with menstrual cycle characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: This study prospectively observed 3858 premenopausal women in the Nurses' Health Study 3 living in the United States or Canada who received biannual follow-up questionnaires between January 2011 and December 2021 and completed additional monthly and quarterly surveys related to the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and November 2021. History of positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 vaccination status, and vaccine type were self-reported in surveys conducted in 2020 and 2021. Current menstrual cycle length and regularity "before COVID-19" were reported at baseline between 2011 and 2016, and current menstrual cycle length and regularity "after COVID-19" were reported in late 2021. Pre- to post-COVID change in menstrual cycle length and regularity was calculated between reports. Logistic or multinomial logistic regression models were used to assess the associations between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination and change in menstrual cycle characteristics. RESULTS: The median age at baseline and the median age at end of follow-up were 33 years (range, 21-51) and 42 years (range, 27-56), respectively, with a median follow-up time of 9.2 years. This study documented 421 SARS-CoV-2 infections (10.9%) and 3527 vaccinations (91.4%) during follow-up. Vaccinated women had a higher risk of increased cycle length than unvaccinated women (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.19), after adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral factors. These associations were similar after in addition accounting for pandemic-related stress. COVID-19 vaccination was only associated with change to longer cycles in the first 6 months after vaccination (0-6 months: odds ratio, 1.67 [95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.64]; 7-9 months: odds ratio, 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.14]; >9 months: odds ratio, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.18]) and among women whose cycles were short, long, or irregular before vaccination (odds ratio, 2.82 [95% confidence interval, 1.51-5.27]; odds ratio, 1.10 [95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.77] for women with normal length, regular cycles before vaccination). Messenger RNA and adenovirus-vectored vaccines were both associated with this change. SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with changes in usual menstrual cycle characteristics. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with short-term changes in usual menstrual cycle length, particularly among women whose cycles were short, long, or irregular before vaccination. The results underscored the importance of monitoring menstrual health in vaccine clinical trials. Future work should examine the potential biological mechanisms.

Associations between predicted vitamin D status, vitamin D intake, and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D may have a role in immune responses to viral infections. However, data on the association between vitamin D and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity have been limited and inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: We examined the associations of predicted vitamin D status and intake with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. METHODS: We used data from periodic surveys (May 2020 to March 2021) within the Nurses' Health Study II. Among 39,315 participants, 1768 reported a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Usual vitamin D intake from foods and supplements were measured using a semiquantitative, pre-pandemic food-frequency questionnaire in 2015. Predicted 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration were calculated based on a previously validated model including dietary and supplementary vitamin D intake, UV-B, and other behavioral predictors of vitamin D status. RESULTS: Higher predicted 25(OH)D concentrations, but not vitamin D intake, were associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Comparing participants in the highest quintile of predicted 25(OH)D concentrations with the lowest, the multivariable-adjusted OR was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.99; P-trend = 0.04). Participants in the highest quartile of UV-B (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.87; P-trend = 0.002) and UV-A (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.88; P-trend < 0.001) also had a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the lowest. High intake of vitamin D from supplements (≥400 IU/d) was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.91; P-trend = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides suggestive evidence on the association between higher predicted circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Greater intake of vitamin D supplements was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Our data also support an association between exposure to UV-B or UV-A, independently of vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 infection, so results for predicted 25(OH)D need to be interpreted cautiously.

American Frontline Healthcare Personnel's Access to and Use of Personal Protective Equipment Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify adequacy of personal protective equipment (PPE) for U.S. healthcare personnel (HCP) at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with infection risk. METHODS: March-May 2020 survey of the national Nurses' Health Studies and the Growing Up Today study regarding self-reported PPE access, use, and reuse. COVID-19 endpoints included SARS-CoV-2 tests and COVID-19 status predicted from symptoms. RESULTS: Nearly 22% of 22,232 frontline HCP interacting with COVID-19 patients reported sometimes or always lacking PPE. Fifty percent of HCP reported not needing respirators, including 13% of those working in COVID-19 units. Lack of PPE was cross-sectionally associated with two-fold or greater odds of COVID-19 among those who interacted with infected patients. CONCLUSION: These data show the need to improve the U.S. infection prevention culture of safety when confronting a novel pathogen.

Risk of COVID-19 among frontline healthcare workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. FINDINGS: Among 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE. INTERPRETATION: Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. FUNDING: Zoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. METHODS: We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. FINDINGS: Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93-12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37-3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. INTERPRETATION: In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. FUNDING: Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.