Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0273339, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2021914

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the mental health of people globally. Significant concerns about health and access to services among women of reproductive age considering pregnancy may cause psychological distress, and in turn increase health risks during and after pregnancy for mothers and offspring. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between pregnancy intention and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, and explore if this association differed based on local viral transmission rates and corresponding levels of pandemic restrictions. METHODS: A nationwide online survey was completed by 849 non-pregnant women aged 18-50 years between 15 October and 7 November 2020. Women were asked about their intention to become pregnant, and psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Multivariable regression analysis examined associations between pregnancy intention and psychological distress. An interaction term was added to the model to examine differences in associations by level of viral transmission rates and lockdown restrictions which was determined based on postcode. RESULTS: Pregnancy intention was not associated with experiencing (very) high psychological distress in the overall study population (odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% CI 0.94, 2.11). The interaction term (p = 0.09) suggested potential differences by level of restrictions and viral transmission rates. In stratified analysis among women living in a location with strict lockdown restrictions and high viral transmission rates leading up to and during the study, those planning to become pregnant were more likely to experience (very) high psychological distress (OR 3.39, 2.04, 5.65) compared with women not planning to become pregnant. Pregnancy intention was not associated with psychological distress among women exposed to lower levels of pandemic restrictions and viral transmission rates (OR 1.17, 0.74, 1.85). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need to identify and support women planning pregnancy during a public health crisis to mitigate potential short- and long-term intergenerational negative health outcomes associated with psychological distress.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Pregnancy
2.
Nutrition ; 103-104: 111794, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2015889

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore psychological distress, lifestyle, and demographic factors, as well as their relationship to discretionary choices in women of reproductive age during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Australia. METHODS: Reproductive-aged women (18-50 y) in Australia participated in a national online survey. Psychological distress score (using a validated 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale questionnaire) was the primary exposure of interest, and key outcomes were frequencies of discretionary choices (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], alcohol, and discretionary foods). Sociodemographic and physical activity data were also collected. Logistic regression was used to report adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval to predict SSBs (less than weekly; most days/daily), total discretionary foods (none/<2 times/d; ≥3 times/d), and alcohol use (never/less than monthly; most weeks/daily). RESULTS: A total of 1005 women were included in the study, of whom 40% had a high level of psychological distress. Women with high psychological distress (aOR: 1.96; 95% CI, 1.32-2.91) and those who gained weight during the pandemic (aOR: 1.71; 95% CI, 1.10-2.65) were more likely to consume discretionary foods ≥3 times/d. There was no association between psychological distress and SSB intake or alcohol; however, Australian, New Zealander, or Pacific Islander background (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI, 1.21-2.33) and more hours of sitting time (aOR: 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.29) were associated with SSB consumption on most days/daily. Older age (aOR: 1.70; 95% CI, 1.00-2.89), higher household income (aOR: 1.44; 95% CI, 1.08-1.92), and moderate or high physical activity (aOR: 1.75; 95% CI, 1.10-2.80) were associated with alcohol intake on most weeks/daily. CONCLUSIONS: Public health messaging to promote healthy eating should take into account the effect of psychological distress on health behavior. Messages aimed at maintaining a positive relationship between food intake and mental wellbeing, particularly among vulnerable groups, are warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Sugar-Sweetened Beverages , Humans , Female , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Beverages , Australia/epidemiology
3.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(2): 106-114, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1838104

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) is common and associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Antenatal lifestyle interventions limit GWG; yet benefits of different intervention types and specific maternal and neonatal outcomes are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of different types of diet and physical activity-based antenatal lifestyle interventions with GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A 2-stage systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted from February 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Search results from the present study were integrated with those from a previous systematic review from 1990 to February 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials reporting GWG and maternal and neonatal outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses to calculate the summary effect estimates and 95% CIs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were clinically prioritized, with mean GWG as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, preterm delivery, large or small for gestational age neonates, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or fetal death. RESULTS: A total of 117 randomized clinical trials of antenatal lifestyle interventions (involving 34 546 women) were included. Overall lifestyle intervention was associated with reduced GWG (-1.15 kg; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.91), risk of gestational diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) vs routine care. Compared with routine care, diet was associated with less GWG (-2.63 kg; 95% CI, -3.87 to -1.40) than physical activity (-1.04 kg; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.74) or mixed interventions (eg, unstructured lifestyle support, written information with weight monitoring, or behavioral support alone) (-0.74 kg; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.43). Diet was associated with reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82), preterm delivery (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.84), large for gestational age neonate (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.47), neonatal intensive care admission (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.95), and total adverse maternal (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92) and neonatal outcomes (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72). Physical activity was associated with reduced GWG and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), hypertensive disorders (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.90), cesarean section (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95), and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.86). Diet with physical activity was associated with reduced GWG (-1.35 kg; 95% CI, -1.95 to -0.75) and reduced risk of gestational diabetes (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96) and total adverse maternal outcomes (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95). Mixed interventions were associated with reduced GWG only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review and meta-analysis found level 1 evidence that antenatal structured diet and physical activity-based lifestyle interventions were associated with reduced GWG and lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The findings support the implementation of such interventions in routine antenatal care and policy around the world.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational , Gestational Weight Gain , Hypertension , Premature Birth , Cesarean Section , Diabetes, Gestational/epidemiology , Diabetes, Gestational/prevention & control , Diet , Exercise , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Premature Birth/prevention & control , Weight Gain
4.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(9)2022 04 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1792681

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: the COVID-19 pandemic has incurred psychological risks for healthcare workers (HCWs). We established a Victorian HCW cohort (the Coronavirus in Victorian Healthcare and Aged-Care Workers (COVIC-HA) cohort study) to examine COVID-19 impacts on HCWs and assess organisational responses over time. METHODS: mixed-methods cohort study, with baseline data collected via an online survey (7 May-18 July 2021) across four healthcare settings: ambulance, hospitals, primary care, and residential aged-care. Outcomes included self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (PTS), wellbeing, burnout, and resilience, measured using validated tools. Work and home-related COVID-19 impacts and perceptions of workplace responses were also captured. RESULTS: among 984 HCWs, symptoms of clinically significant depression, anxiety, and PTS were reported by 22.5%, 14.0%, and 20.4%, respectively, highest among paramedics and nurses. Emotional exhaustion reflecting moderate-severe burnout was reported by 65.1%. Concerns about contracting COVID-19 at work and transmitting COVID-19 were common, but 91.2% felt well-informed on workplace changes and 78.3% reported that support services were available. CONCLUSIONS: Australian HCWs employed during 2021 experienced adverse mental health outcomes, with prevalence differences observed according to occupation. Longitudinal evidence is needed to inform workplace strategies that support the physical and mental wellbeing of HCWs at organisational and state policy levels.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Mental Health , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(3): e220773, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1718200

ABSTRACT

Importance: Women with recent gestational diabetes (GDM) have increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Objective: To investigate whether a resource-appropriate and context-appropriate lifestyle intervention could prevent glycemic deterioration among women with recent GDM in South Asia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, participant-unblinded controlled trial investigated a 12-month lifestyle intervention vs usual care at 19 urban hospitals in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Participants included women with recent diagnosis of GDM who did not have type 2 diabetes at an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3 to 18 months postpartum. They were enrolled from November 2017 to January 2020, and follow-up ended in January 2021. Data were analyzed from April to July 2021. Interventions: A 12-month lifestyle intervention focused on diet and physical activity involving group and individual sessions, as well as remote engagement, adapted to local context and resources. This was compared with usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was worsening category of glycemia based on OGTT using American Diabetes Association criteria: (1) normal glucose tolerance to prediabetes (ie, impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance) or type 2 diabetes or (2) prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. The primary analysis consisted of a survival analysis of time to change in glycemic status at or prior to the final patient visit, which occurred at varying times after 12 months for each patient. Secondary outcomes included new-onset type 2 diabetes and change in body weight. Results: A total of 1823 women (baseline mean [SD] age, 30.9 [4.9] years and mean [SD] body mass index, 26.6 [4.6]) underwent OGTT at a median (IQR) 6.5 (4.8-8.2) months postpartum. After excluding 160 women (8.8%) with type 2 diabetes, 2 women (0.1%) who met other exclusion criteria, and 49 women (2.7%) who did not consent or were uncontactable, 1612 women were randomized. Subsequently, 11 randomized participants were identified as ineligible and excluded from the primary analysis, leaving 1601 women randomized (800 women randomized to the intervention group and 801 women randomized to usual care). These included 600 women (37.5%) with prediabetes and 1001 women (62.5%) with normoglycemia. Among participants randomized to the intervention, 644 women (80.5%) received all program content, although COVID-19 lockdowns impacted the delivery model (ie, among 644 participants who engaged in all group sessions, 476 women [73.9%] received some or all content through individual engagement, and 315 women [48.9%] received some or all content remotely). After a median (IQR) 14.1 (11.4-20.1) months of follow-up, 1308 participants (81.2%) had primary outcome data. The intervention, compared with usual care, did not reduce worsening glycemic status (204 women [25.5%] vs 217 women [27.1%]; hazard ratio, 0.92; [95% CI, 0.76-1.12]; P = .42) or improve any secondary outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that a large proportion of women in South Asian urban settings developed dysglycemia soon after a GDM-affected pregnancy and that a lifestyle intervention, modified owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not prevent subsequent glycemic deterioration. These findings suggest that alternate or additional approaches are needed, especially among high-risk individuals. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India Identifier: CTRI/2017/06/008744; Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: SLCTR/2017/001; and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03305939.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/prevention & control , Diabetes, Gestational/prevention & control , Diet , Exercise , Glycemic Control/methods , Life Style , Postpartum Period , Adult , Bangladesh , Blood Glucose , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/ethnology , Diabetes, Gestational/ethnology , Female , Glucose Tolerance Test , Humans , India , Pregnancy , Sri Lanka , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome , Urban Population
6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-322495

ABSTRACT

Background: Women with recent gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to determine whether a resource- and culturally-appropriate lifestyle intervention could prevent glycaemic deterioration in South Asia.Methods: This was an open-label parallel-group randomised trial. Women with GDM from 19 urban hospitals in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) 3-18 months post-partum. Those without T2DM were randomised to a 12-month lifestyle intervention focused on diet and physical activity or usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion with worsening category of glycaemia based on OGTT using American Diabetes Association criteria: 1) normal glucose tolerance to pre-diabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance) or T2DM;or 2) pre-diabetes to T2DM. Secondary outcomes included new-onset T2DM, and change in body weight.Findings: 1823 women underwent OGTT at a median of 6·9 months post-partum. After excluding 162 (8·9%) with T2DM, 1612 (37·5% with pre-diabetes and 62·5% with normoglycaemia) were randomised between November 2017 and January 2020. Baseline mean age was 30·9 years (SD 4·9), mean BMI was 26·6 kg/m 2 (SD 4·7). Among participants randomised to the intervention, 79·7% were exposed to all programme content although pandemic lockdowns impacted the delivery model. After 14·5 months median follow-up, 1308 (81·2%) participants had primary outcome data. The intervention, compared to usual care, did not reduce worsening glycaemic status (25·5% vs. 27·1%;hazard ratio, 0·92 [95% CI: 0·76‒1·12]) or any secondary outcome. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of intervention effect by baseline characteristics. Interpretation: A large proportion of South Asian women in urban centres develop dysglycaemia soon after a GDM-affected pregnancy. A low-intensity lifestyle intervention, substantially modified due to the COVID-19 pandemic, did not prevent subsequent deterioration in glycaemic status. Alternate or additional approaches are needed, especially among high-risk individuals.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2017/06/008744), Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR/2017/001) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03305939).Funding: Global Alliance for Chronic Disease grants from the Indian Council of Medical Research (NO.58/1/1/GACD/NCD-II) and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (1093171). Additional funding was received from USV Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for sub-studies (data not reported here).Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: The study protocol was approved by Human Research Ethics Committees of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (India), icddr,b (Bangladesh), Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya (Sri Lanka) and the University of Sydney (Australia)

7.
BMJ Open ; 12(1): e057127, 2022 01 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604731

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine SARS-CoV-2 vaccine confidence, attitudes and intentions in Australian adults as part of the iCARE Study. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey conducted when free COVID-19 vaccinations first became available in Australia in February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Total of 1166 Australians from general population aged 18-90 years (mean 52, SD of 19). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: responses to question 'If a vaccine for COVID-19 were available today, what is the likelihood that you would get vaccinated?'.Secondary outcome: analyses of putative drivers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status and sources of trust, derived from multiple survey questions. RESULTS: Seventy-eight per cent reported being likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Higher SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions were associated with: increasing age (OR: 2.01 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.77)), being male (1.37 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.72)), residing in least disadvantaged area quintile (2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.37)) and a self-perceived high risk of getting COVID-19 (1.52 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.14)). However, 72% did not believe they were at a high risk of getting COVID-19. Findings regarding vaccines in general were similar except there were no sex differences. For both the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and vaccines in general, there were no differences in intentions to vaccinate as a function of education level, perceived income level and rurality. Knowing that the vaccine is safe and effective and that getting vaccinated will protect others, trusting the company that made it and vaccination recommended by a doctor were reported to influence a large proportion of the study cohort to uptake the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Seventy-eight per cent reported the intent to continue engaging in virus-protecting behaviours (mask wearing, social distancing, etc) postvaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Most Australians are likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Key influencing factors identified (eg, knowing vaccine is safe and effective, and doctor's recommendation to get vaccinated) can inform public health messaging to enhance vaccination rates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Communication , Vaccines , Adult , Attitude , Australia , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Intention , Male , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
9.
Nutrients ; 13(12)2021 Nov 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1542686

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to describe the prevalence, severity and socio-demographic predictors of food insecurity in Australian households during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, from the perspective of women. A cross-sectional online survey of Australian (18-50 years) women was conducted. The survey collected demographic information and utilised the 18-item US Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey Module and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). A multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of food security status. In this cohort (n = 1005), 19.6% were living in households experiencing food insecurity; with 11.8% experiencing low food-security and 7.8% very low food-security. A further 13.7% of households reported marginal food-security. Poor mental health status (K10 score ≥ 20) predicted household food insecurity at all levels. The presence of more than three children in the household was associated with low food-security (OR 6.24, 95% CI: 2.59-15.03). Those who were renting were 2.10 (95% CI: 1.09-4.05) times likely to experience very low food-security than those owning their own home. The COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an increased prevalence of household food insecurity. This study supports the need for a range of responses that address mental health, financial, employment and housing support to food security in Australia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Food Insecurity , Mental Health , Pandemics , Adolescent , Adult , Australia/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors
10.
Front Public Health ; 9: 630189, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278465

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess and share learnings on the motivators and behavioural adherence across sex and age to evolving strategies in public policy to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 at the end of a first COVID-19 wave and the beginning of a second COVID-19 wave in Australia. Design and Setting: A national longitudinal survey using a framework based on evidence-based behaviour change models. The survey was administered to a national sample representative across sex, age and location was undertaken at two time points: May 1st to 5th, 2020, and July 1st to 7th, 2020. Results: Overall 2,056 surveys were completed across the first and second rounds, with 63% (1,296/2,056) completing both. Age range was 18-99 years (median 53, IQR: 34-64). Suboptimal physical distancing and self-quarantining if unwell/diagnosed was reported in one in four respondents and not getting a test at onset of symptoms reported in one in three. Those non-adherent to all three behaviours (19%, 60/323), were mainly male, younger, lived in major cities and reported fewer concerns or motivators to change behaviour. Overall, government lockdown measures were considered very important by 81% (835/1,032) and appropriate by 75% (772/1,029). Conclusions: Prior to the suppression of a second COVID-19 wave, a significant minority of Australians reported suboptimal behavioural adherence to vital policy strategies to limit SARS-CoV-2 spread, mostly young adults and men. Successful wave 2 suppression required consistent communication from political and health leaders and supportive public health and economic strategies. Additional lockdown and punitive strategies were needed in Victoria and were generally well-supported and adhered to. To limit subsequent lockdown, this work reinforces the need for a mix of communication around saving lives of the vulnerable, and other strategies targeting high risk groups, facilitation of easy testing and minimisation of financial impacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Communicable Disease Control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Victoria , Young Adult
11.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 558696, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069723

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019 and became a pandemic in a short period of time. While most infected people might have mild symptoms, older people and people with chronic illnesses may develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients with ARDS with worsening hypoxemia require prone positioning to improve the respiratory mechanics and oxygenation. Intubated patients may stay in a prone position up to 12-16 h, increasing the risk of pressure injury (PI). Frequent skin inspections and PI risk assessment in COVID-19 patients will be challenging due to hospital infection control measures aimed to reduce the risk for health professionals. In this perspective article, we summarize the best practice recommendations for prevention of PI in SARS-CoV-2-infected ARDS patients in prone positioning. Prior to positioning patients in prone position, the main recommendations are to (1) conduct a skin assessment, (2) use pressure redistribution devices, (3) select an appropriate mattress or an overlay, (4) ensure that the endotracheal tube securing device is removed and the endotracheal tube is secured with tapes, (5) use a liquid film-forming protective dressing, and (6) lubricate the eyes and tape them closed. Once a patient is in prone position, it is recommended to (1) use the swimmer's position, (2) reposition the patient every 2 h, and (3) keep the skin clean. When the patient is repositioned to supine position, healthcare professionals are advised to (1) assess the pressure points and (2) promote early mobilization.

12.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(9): e22002, 2020 09 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-732939

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 global pandemic has impacted the whole of society, requiring rapid implementation of individual-, population-, and system-level public health responses to contain and reduce the spread of infection. Women in the perinatal period (pregnant, birthing, and postpartum) have unique and timely needs for directives on health, safety, and risk aversion during periods of isolation and physical distancing for themselves, their child or children, and other family members. In addition, they are a vulnerable group at increased risk of psychological distress that may be exacerbated in the context of social support deprivation and a high-risk external environment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the public discourse of a perinatal cohort to understand unmet health information and support needs, and the impacts on mothering identity and social dynamics in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: A leading Australian online support forum for women pre- through to postbirth was used to interrogate all posts related to COVID-19 from January 27 to May 12, 2020, inclusive. Key search terms included "COVID," "corona," and "pandemic." A three-phase analysis was conducted, including thematic analysis, sentiment analysis, and word frequency calculations. RESULTS: The search yielded 960 posts, of which 831 were included in our analysis. The qualitative thematic analysis demonstrated reasonable understanding, interpretation, and application of relevant restrictions in place, with five emerging themes identified. These were (1) heightened distress related to a high-risk external environment; (2) despair and anticipatory grief due to deprivation of social and family support, and bonding rituals; (3) altered family and support relationships; (4) guilt-tampered happiness; and (5) family future postponed. Sentiment analysis revealed that the content was predominantly negative (very negative: n=537 and moderately negative: n=443 compared to very positive: n=236 and moderately positive: n=340). Negative words were frequently used in the 831 posts with associated derivatives including "worried" (n=165, 19.9%), "risk" (n=143, 17.2%), "anxiety" (n=98, 11.8%), "concerns" (n=74, 8.8%), and "stress" (n=69, 8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Women in the perinatal period are uniquely impacted by the current pandemic. General information on COVID-19 safe behaviors did not meet the particular needs of this cohort. The lack of nuanced and timely information may exacerbate the risk of psychological and psychosocial distress in this vulnerable, high-risk group. State and federal public health departments need to provide a central repository of information that is targeted, consistent, accessible, timely, and reassuring. Compensatory social and emotional support should be considered, using alternative measures to mitigate the risk of mental health disorders in this cohort.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Internet , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Mothers/psychology , Parenting/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Postpartum Period/psychology , Pregnancy/psychology , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Child , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Parturition/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/psychology , Social Support
13.
Eur J Endocrinol ; 183(2): G49-G56, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-701826

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has required rapid transformation and adaptation of healthcare services. Women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are one of the largest high-risk groups accessing antenatal care. In reformulating the care offered to those with GDM, there is a need to balance the sometimes competing requirement of lowering the risk of direct viral transmission against the potential adverse impact of service changes. We suggest pragmatic options for screening of GDM in a pandemic setting based on blood tests, and risk calculators applied to underlying risk factors. Alternative models for antenatal care provision for women with GDM, including targeting high-risk groups, early lifestyle interventions and remote monitoring are provided. Testing options and their timing for postpartum screening in women who had GDM are also considered. Our suggestions are only applicable in a pandemic scenario, and usual guidelines and care pathways should be re-implemented as soon as possible and appropriate.


Subject(s)
Diabetes, Gestational/diagnosis , Endocrinology/methods , Obstetrics/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prenatal Care/methods , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Endocrinology/standards , Female , Humans , Obstetrics/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Prenatal Care/standards , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL