Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 767, 2021 Nov 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1923525

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to regional or nationwide lockdowns as part of risk mitigation measurements in many countries worldwide. Recent studies suggest an unexpected and unprecedented decrease in preterm births during the initial COVID-19 lockdowns in the first half of 2020. The objective of the current study was to assess the effects of the two months of the initial national COVID-19 lockdown period on the incidence of very and extremely preterm birth in the Netherlands, stratified by either spontaneous or iatrogenic onset of delivery, in both singleton and multiple pregnancies. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from all 10 perinatal centers in the Netherlands on very and extremely preterm births during the initial COVID-19 lockdown from March 15 to May 15, 2020. Incidences of very and extremely preterm birth were calculated using an estimate of the total number of births in the Netherlands in this period. As reference, we used data from the corresponding calendar period in 2015-2018 from the national perinatal registry (Perined). We differentiated between spontaneous versus iatrogenic onset of delivery and between singleton versus multiple pregnancies. RESULTS: The incidence of total preterm birth < 32 weeks in singleton pregnancies was 6.1‰ in the study period in 2020 versus 6.5‰ in the corresponding period in 2015-2018. The decrease in preterm births in singletons was solely due to a significant decrease in iatrogenic preterm births, both < 32 weeks (OR 0.71; 95%CI 0.53 to 0.95) and < 28 weeks (OR 0.53; 95%CI 0.29 to 0.97). For multiple pregnancies, an increase in preterm births < 28 weeks was observed (OR 2.43; 95%CI 1.35 to 4.39). CONCLUSION: This study shows a decrease in iatrogenic preterm births during the initial COVID-19-related lockdown in the Netherlands in singletons. Future studies should focus on the mechanism of action of lockdown measures and reduction of preterm birth and the effects of perinatal outcome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Labor, Induced/trends , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Premature Birth/etiology , Female , Health Policy , Humans , Iatrogenic Disease/epidemiology , Incidence , Infant, Extremely Premature , Infant, Newborn , Logistic Models , Netherlands/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Prenatal Care/methods , Prenatal Care/trends , Protective Factors , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
2.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 310, 2021 Apr 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191317

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) is one of the most commonly performed interventions in maternity care, with outpatient cervical ripening increasingly offered as an option for women undergoing IOL. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the context of practice and the option of returning home for cervical ripening may now assume greater significance. This work aimed to examine whether and how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed practice around IOL in the UK. METHOD: We used an online questionnaire to survey senior obstetricians and midwives at all 156 UK NHS Trusts and Boards that currently offer maternity services. Responses were analysed to produce descriptive statistics, with free text responses analysed using a conventional content analysis approach. FINDINGS: Responses were received from 92 of 156 UK Trusts and Boards, a 59% response rate. Many Trusts and Boards reported no change to their IOL practice, however 23% reported change in methods used for cervical ripening; 28% a change in criteria for home cervical ripening; 28% stated that more women were returning home during cervical ripening; and 24% noted changes to women's response to recommendations for IOL. Much of the change was reported as happening in response to attempts to minimise hospital attendance and restrictions on birth partners accompanying women. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has changed practice around induction of labour, although this varied significantly between NHS Trusts and Boards. There is a lack of formal evidence to support decision-making around outpatient cervical ripening: the basis on which changes were implemented and what evidence was used to inform decisions is not clear.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19 , Cervical Ripening , Critical Pathways , Labor, Induced , Adult , Ambulatory Care/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Decision-Making , Critical Pathways/organization & administration , Critical Pathways/trends , Female , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Labor, Induced/methods , Labor, Induced/trends , Maternal Health Services/trends , Organizational Innovation , Policy Making , Pregnancy , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL