Mental health of pregnant and postpartum women during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a European cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the mental health of perinatal women in five European countries during the third pandemic wave and identify risk factors related to depressive and anxiety symptoms. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, online survey-based study. SETTING: Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK, 10 June 2021-22 August 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant and up to 3 months postpartum women, older than 18 years of age. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) were used to assess mental health status. Univariate and multivariate generalised linear models were performed to identify factors associated with poor mental health. RESULTS: 5210 women participated (including 3411 pregnant and 1799 postpartum women). The prevalence of major depressive symptoms (EDS ≥13) was 16.1% in the pregnancy group and 17.0% in the postpartum . Moderate to severe generalised anxiety symptoms (GAD ≥10) were found among 17.3% of the pregnant and 17.7% of the postpartum women. Risk factors associated with poor mental health included having a pre-existing mental illness, a chronic somatic illness, having had COVID-19 or its symptoms, smoking, unplanned pregnancy and country of residence. Among COVID-19 restrictive measures specific to perinatal care, pregnant and postpartum women were most anxious about not having their partner present at the time of delivery, that their partner had to leave the hospital early and to be separated from their newborn after the delivery. CONCLUSION: Approximately one in six pregnant or postpartum women reported major depression or anxiety symptoms during the third wave of the pandemic. These findings suggest a continued need to monitor depression and anxiety in pregnancy and postpartum populations throughout and in the wake of the pandemic. Tailored support and counselling are essential to reduce the burden of the pandemic on perinatal and infant mental health.

Impact of COVID-19 on the Organization of Cancer Care in Belgium: Lessons Learned for the (Post-)Pandemic Future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed tremendous challenges to healthcare systems. Care for oncology patients, a vulnerable population during the pandemic, was disrupted and drastically changed. A multicenter qualitative study was conducted in 11 Belgian hospitals with the aim to provide an overview of the most important changes that were made in the care of oncology patients in Belgium. In each hospital, a nurse or physician was interviewed by telephone. Two rounds of structured interviews-during the first and second waves of the pandemic-were conducted. The data were analyzed using content analysis. The impact of COVID-19 on care practices for patients with cancer was enormous during the first wave. Major changes, including good but also less patient-centered practices, were implemented with unprecedented speed. After the initial wave, regular care was resumed and only limited new care practices were maintained. In only a few hospitals, healthcare teams reflected on lessons learned and on the maintenance of good practices that came from the COVID-19 experience. As a result, opportunities for healthcare innovation and quality improvement seemed to be missed. Our recommendations aim to support policymakers, hospital managers, and healthcare professionals to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic and to drive patient-centered initiatives in future cancer care.

Experiences of patients with cancer and their relatives confronted with COVID-19 related delay or change in care: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To provide in-depth insight into how patients and their relatives experienced change or delay in cancer treatment and care due to COVID-19. DESIGN: A qualitative study including semi-structured interviews with patients with cancer and their relatives. METHODS: Between July and October 2020, 42 patients who were confronted with a change or delay in cancer treatment or care, and 11 relatives were interviewed. Data collection and analysis were performed according to the most important methods of grounded theory, including iterative data collection and analysis, theoretical sampling, constant comparative analysis and theoretical sensitivity. RESULTS: This study shows that patients with cancer and relatives experienced paradoxical feelings when confronted with change or delay in treatment or care due to COVID-19. Patients and relatives felt relieved (e.g. less risk of infection), but were also concerned and anxious (e.g. fear for progression, fear for more side effects). Due to these ambivalent feelings, it was difficult for patients and relatives to cope with the change or delay in treatment or care, both when this was decided by the physician and by themselves. In combination with the general impact of COVID-19 on their daily lives, the change or delay led to additional distress. The interviews showed that exploring the meaning of change or delay of care for patients and their relatives and discussing what would help them might prevent or relieve distress. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study show that COVID-19 and the associated delay or changes in cancer treatment and care had a major impact on the well-being of patients and their relatives. Person-oriented care is even more important during (emergency) situations in which care might be changed or delayed.

Recommendations for Researchers on Synchronous, Online, Nominal Group Sessions in Times of COVID-19: Fishbone Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In times of COVID-19, we are challenged to experiment with alternative platforms or software to connect people. In particular, the struggle that arose in health research was how to interact with patients and care professionals. The latter is additionally faced with an extreme workload to fight the pandemic crisis. Creative strategies have been developed to continue research among patients and care professionals to improve quality of care. This paper addresses the issue of synchronous, online, nominal group sessions, a common consensus method used for group brainstorming. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to share our experiences with performing online, nominal group sessions using the video conference software Microsoft Teams. In addition, we aimed to create a practical guide with recommendations for researchers. METHODS: We critically analyzed the procedures for the online nominal group technique, according to the Fishbone methodology. RESULTS: Performing synchronous, online, nominal group sessions is challenging but offers opportunities. Although interaction with and among the attendees complicates the process, the major advantage of online sessions is their accessibility and comfort because of reduced barriers to participation (eg, lower time investment). The role of the moderators is of major importance, and good preparation beforehand is required. Recommendations for future online, nominal research were formulated. CONCLUSIONS: Online, nominal group sessions seem to be a promising alternative for the real-life commonly used technique. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the benefits must be highlighted. More expertise is needed to further refine the practical guide for using digital software in research and to achieve optimal performance.

Self-Reported Medication Use among Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study in Five European Countries.

Insight into the epidemiology of perinatal medication use during the COVID-19 pandemic is scarce. Therefore, a cross-sectional study using an anonymous web survey was performed in Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the prevalence and type of medications used by pregnant and breast-feeding women during the first pandemic wave. Factors associated with medication use were estimated by logistic regression. In total, 8378 women participated (i.e., 3666 pregnant and 4712 breastfeeding women). Most responses were collected in Norway (34%) and The Netherlands (28%), followed by Switzerland (19%), Ireland (17%) and UK (2%). Participants were more often professionally active and more often had a higher educational level compared to the general birthing population in each country. Overall, approximately 60% of women reported having used at least 1 medication in the preceding 3 months. Daily and occasional use was reported by 34% and 42% of pregnant and 29% and 44% of breastfeeding women. The most prevalent ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical) categories were the nervous system, the respiratory system, the alimentary tract/metabolism, and the musculo-skeletal system. Paracetamol, ibuprofen, antacids, and cetirizine were the most frequently used medications. The rate of antibacterial use was lower than previously reported. Having a chronic illness, country, maternal age, SARS-CoV-2 testing, professional status and time since delivery were associated with medication use. In conclusion, perinatal medication use was highly prevalent during the first pandemic wave, underlining the importance of maintaining counseling efforts on medication use, even in times of disrupted healthcare services and/or limited resources.

Vaccine Willingness and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Women's Perinatal Experiences and Practices-A Multinational, Cross-Sectional Study Covering the First Wave of the Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic may be of particular concern for pregnant and breastfeeding women. We aimed to explore their beliefs about the coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccine willingness and to assess the impact of the pandemic on perinatal experiences and practices. A multinational, cross-sectional, web-based study was performed in six European countries between April and July 2020. The anonymous survey was promoted via social media. In total, 16,063 women participated (including 6661 pregnant and 9402 breastfeeding women). Most responses were collected from Belgium (44%), Norway (18%) and the Netherlands (16%), followed by Switzerland (11%), Ireland (10%) and the UK (3%). Despite differences between countries, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was identified among 40-50% of the respondents at the end of the first wave of the pandemic and was higher among pregnant women. Education level and employment status were associated with vaccine hesitancy. The first wave had an adverse impact on pregnancy experiences and disrupted access to health services and breastfeeding support for many women. In the future, access to health care and support should be maintained at all times. Evidence-based and tailored information on COVID-19 vaccines should also be provided to pregnant and breastfeeding women to avoid unfounded concerns about the vaccines and to support shared decision making in this population.

Mental health status of pregnant and breastfeeding women during the COVID-19 pandemic-A multinational cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on perinatal mental health during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its potential determinants is limited. Therefore, this multinational study aimed to assess the mental health status of pregnant and breastfeeding women during the pandemic, and to explore potential associations between depressive symptoms, anxiety, and stress and women's sociodemographic, health, and reproductive characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based study was performed in Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the UK between 16 June and 14 July 2020. Pregnant and breastfeeding women up to 3 months postpartum who were older than 18 years of age were eligible. The online, anonymous survey was promoted through social media and hospital websites. The Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder seven-item scale (GAD-7), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) were used to assess mental health status. Regression model analysis was used to identify factors associated with poor mental health status. RESULTS: In total, 9041 women participated (including 3907 pregnant and 5134 breastfeeding women). The prevalence of major depressive symptoms (EDS ≥ 13) was 15% in the pregnancy cohort and and 13% the breastfeeding cohort. Moderate to severe generalized anxiety symptoms (GAD ≥ 10) were found among 11% and 10% of the pregnant and breastfeeding women. The mean (±SD) PSS scores for pregnant and breastfeeding women were 14.1 ± 6.6 and 13.7 ± 6.6, respectively. Risk factors associated with poor mental health included having a chronic mental illness, a chronic somatic illness in the postpartum period, smoking, having an unplanned pregnancy, professional status, and living in the UK or Ireland. CONCLUSIONS: This multinational study found high levels of depressive symptoms and generalized anxiety among pregnant and breastfeeding women during the COVID-19 outbreak. The study findings underline the importance of monitoring perinatal mental health during pandemics and other societal crises to safeguard maternal and infant mental health.

SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: Results from an Observational Study in Primary Care in Belgium.

COVID-19 also affects pregnant and breastfeeding women. Hence, clinicians and policymakers require reliable evidence on COVID-19 epidemiology and consequences in this population. We aimed to assess the susceptibility of pregnant women to SARS-CoV-2 and women's perceived impact of the pandemic on their breastfeeding practices, medical counseling and social support. We performed a cross-sectional study using an online survey in primary care in Belgium. Pregnant and breastfeeding women and women who breastfed in the preceding four weeks were eligible to participate. The survey was distributed through social media in April 2020. In total, 6470 women participated (i.e., 2647 pregnant and 3823 breastfeeding women). Overall, 0.3% of all respondents reported to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, not indicating a higher susceptibility of pregnant women to contracting COVID-19. More than 90% refuted that the pandemic affected their breastfeeding practices, nor indicated that the coronavirus was responsible for breastfeeding cessation. Half of the women even considered giving longer breastmilk because of the coronavirus. In contrast, women's medical counseling and social support were negatively affected by the lockdown. Women without previous breastfeeding experience and in the early postpartum period experienced a higher burden in terms of reduced medical counseling and support. In the future, more consideration and alternative supportive measures such as tele-visits by midwives or perinatal organizations are required for these women.