Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
J Perinat Med ; 2022 Dec 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20234248

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: During the first 3 months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, our hospital's quality management team determined a decline in the rate of cesarean deliveries (CD). Thus, in this study we examined both the factors associated with this decrease as well as neonatal outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study comparing deliveries (n=597) between March and May 2020 (first nationwide "lockdown" in Switzerland) with those during the same period in 2018 and 2019 (n=1,063). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between CD and the pandemic, adjusting for relevant risk factors for CD. RESULTS: The overall rate of CD during the pandemic period was lower (30.0%), than during the pre-pandemic period (38.7%, unadjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.55 to 0.84, p=0.0004) a result that was supported by the adjusted odds ratio (0.73, 95%CI: 0.54 to 0.99, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirmed a significant reduction in the rate of CD in early 2020, during the first lockdown period due to COVID-19, but without major differences in maternal and infant health indicators or in obstetric risk factors than before the pandemic. These results may have been due to a difference in the composition of the obstetric team as well as the behavior of the obstetrics team and in the patients during the pandemic, given the burden it placed on healthcare systems. However, this hypothesis remains to be tested in further research.

2.
Education & Training ; 64(4):533-558, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1891310

ABSTRACT

Purpose>Current research lacks a clear definition of blended learning in entrepreneurship education (EE), a comprehensive overview of the recent research, and a conceptualization of different types of blends with their respective challenges and advantages. In response to that, the author systematically reviewed the literature on blended learning in EE and developed four archetypes of blends for entrepreneurship educators.Design/methodology/approach>The author conducted a systematic literature review and identified 75 relevant peer-reviewed articles published between 2004 and 2021.Findings>The findings suggest that blended learning is a common yet underexplored and undertheorized phenomenon in EE. The findings display the rationale and motives, educator characteristics, content, teaching methods, student characteristics, and results of blended learning in EE.Originality/value>The paper is original because it posits blended learning as an independent and unique mode of delivery in EE. In addition, the author suggests four archetypes of blends in EE: the traditional blend, the for-action blend, the in-action blend, and the experiential blend. For each of these blends, the author identified specific advantages and challenges and discussed under which circumstances educators may employ them.

3.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 22(1): 51, 2022 Jan 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643117

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lockdowns, pregnant women's fear from hospitalization in addition to uncertainties about appropriate birthing practices at the beginning of the pandemic may have affected the health outcomes of mother-infant couples. We aimed to explore whether pregnancy outcomes including the rates of cesarean delivery (CS), preterm, and low birth weight (LBW) births have changed during the pandemic period compared with the pre-pandemic period. METHODS: We applied a population-based retrospective cohort, before-after approach in 2020 vs. similar calendar months in 2019 for five periods [Jan-Feb (pre-pandemic); March-May (1st wave and lockdown); June-August; September-October; November-December (2nd wave and lockdown)]. The data was modelled through multiple logistic regressions using key outcomes; CS, preterm, and LBW births as the dependent variables, and adjustments were made for independent variables in SPSS software. We evaluated the modification of years by periods by adding interaction term (yearXperiod) to the model. RESULTS: The rate of CS in hospital births increased from 57.7% in 2019 to 60.2% in 2020. CS rates were significantly increased during the 3rd and 4th periods. The overall preterm rate was 11%. When singleton pregnancies were considered, adjusted multivariable analyses showed a decrease in preterm proportions during all time periods with respect to the pre-pandemic period. The percentage of LBW was 7.7% during the pandemic period and was found to be significantly reduced compared to the pre-pandemic period. There was a significant reduction in LBW rates in all periods except the second lockdown period. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested significant reductions in preterm and LBW births possibly due to the indirect effects of the pandemic. Moreover, strategies need to be considered to address the increased CS rates and shifting of maternity service utilization to private facilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cesarean Section/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals , Infant, Low Birth Weight , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Adult , Cohort Studies , Delivery, Obstetric/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Logistic Models , Pregnancy , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Turkey/epidemiology
4.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 634949, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1120248

ABSTRACT

Background: The impact of delivery mode on the infection rates of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the newborn remains unknown. We aimed to summarize the existing literature on COVID-19 infection during pregnancy to evaluate which mode of delivery is better for preventing possible vertical transmission from a pregnant mother confirmed with COVID-19 to a neonate. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM) from 31 December 2019 to 18 June 2020. We applied no language restrictions. We screened abstracts for relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in duplicate. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test positivity in neonates born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 following different delivery modes. Secondary outcomes were neonatal deaths and maternal deaths. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020194049. Results: Sixty-eight observational studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in the current study, with no randomized controlled trials. In total, information on the mode of delivery, detailed neonatal outcomes, and SARS-CoV-2 status were available for 1,019 pregnant women and 1,035 neonates. Six hundred and eighteen (59.71%) neonates were born through cesarean section and 417(40.29%) through vaginal delivery. Probable congenital SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported in 34/1,035 (3.29%) neonates. Of babies born vaginally, 9/417 (2.16%) were tested positive compared with 25/618 (4.05%) born by cesarean. Of babies born vaginally, 0/417 (0.00%) neonatal deaths were reported compared with 6/618 (0.97%) born by cesarean. Of women who delivered vaginally, 1/416 (0.24%) maternal deaths were reported compared with 11/603 (1.82%) delivered by cesarean. Two women died before delivery. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses showed similar findings. Conclusions: The rate of neonatal COVID-19 infection, neonatal deaths, and maternal deaths are no greater when the mother gave birth through vaginal delivery. Based on the evidence available, there is no sufficient evidence supporting that the cesarean section is better than vaginal delivery in preventing possible vertical transmission from a pregnant mother confirmed with COVID-19 to a neonate. The mode of birth should be individualized and based on disease severity and obstetric indications. Additional good-quality studies with comprehensive serial tests from multiple specimens are urgently needed. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020194049.

5.
Eur J Midwifery ; 4: 28, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063552
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL