Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 2.042
Filter
Add filters

Filters applied
Year range
1.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ; 21(1): 59, 2021 Jan 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1031065

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 caused some worries among pregnant women. Worries during pregnancy can affect women's well-being. We investigated worry and well-being and associated factors among pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 484 pregnant women using an online questionnaire. Sampling was performed in a period between May 5 and Aug 5, 2020. Inclusion criteria were having a single healthy fetus and having no significant psychological disorder. We collected the data using the Persian versions of the World Health Organization's Well-Being Index (WHO-5 Well-Being Index) and the Cambridge Worry Scale. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify predictors of women's worry and well-being. RESULTS: The mean total scores of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index and the percentage of WHO-5 score < 50 were 64.9 ± 29.0 and 24.4%, respectively. Predictors of women's worry are the increased level of fear of COVID-19 (OR = 6.40, p <  0.001), a low family income (OR = 3.41, p <  0.001), employment status (OR = 1.86, p = 0.019), nulliparity (OR = 1.68, p = 0.024), having a COVID-19 infected person among relatives (OR = 2.45, p = 0.036), having a history of abortion (OR = 1.86, p = 0.012), having participated in the study after the first wave of COVID-19 outbreak (OR = 2.328, p = 0.003), and women's age < 30 year (OR = 2.11, p = 0.002). Predictors of low level of well-being in pregnant women are worry about their own health and relationships (OR = 1.789, p = .017), worry about fetus health (OR = 1.946, p = 0.009), and having at least one infected person with COVID-19 among relatives (OR = 2.135, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of women experiencing a low well-being state was relatively high. This result is worthy of attention by health care providers and policy makers. Providing care and support to pregnant women should have high priority during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod ; : 102064, 2021 Jan 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1030911

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data about obstetric complications of maternal infection by SARS-CoV-2 remain sparse. CASE: A 40-year-old pregnant woman, gravida 3 para 1 with no previous obstetric complications, presented a late miscarriage at 16 weeks of gestation on day 9 of COVID-19 disease. The results of her nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2, tested the same day, were negative, but the placenta was infected by SARS-CoV-2 and serology was positive 11 days later. No other obstetric or infectious cause was found to explain this outcome. CONCLUSION: This case strongly suggests that SARS-CoV-2 may lead to a late miscarriage.

3.
J Assist Reprod Genet ; 2021 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1030732

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception of the initial ASRM COVID-19 recommendations for infertility treatment held by women's health providers within varying subspecialties, as well as their attitudes toward pregnancy and fertility during this time. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all women's healthcare providers, including physicians, mid-level providers and nurses, in all subspecialties of obstetrics and gynaecology (Ob/Gyn) at a large tertiary care university-affiliated hospital. RESULTS: Of the 278 eligible providers, the survey response rate was 45% (n = 127). Participants represented 8 Ob/Gyn subspecialties and all professional levels. Participants age 18-30 years were significantly more likely to feel that women should have access to infertility treatment despite the burden level of COVID-19 in respective community/states (p = 0.0058). Participants within the subspecialties of general Ob/Gyn, maternal foetal medicine and gynecologic oncology were significantly more likely to disagree that all women should refrain from planned conception during the COVID-19 pandemic, in comparison to those in urogynecology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the immediate and unknown long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fertility care delivery, a better understanding of perceptions regarding infertility management during this time is important. Our study shows overall support for the initial ASRM recommendations, representing a wide spectrum of women's health providers.

4.
Int J Med Sci ; 18(3): 763-767, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1030363

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is an emerging disease. There has been a rapid increase in cases and deaths since it was identified in Wuhan, China, in early December 2019, with over 4,000,000 cases of COVID-19 including at least 250,000 deaths worldwide as of May 2020. However, limited data about the clinical characteristics of pregnant women with COVID-19 have been reported. Given the maternal physiologic and immune function changes during pregnancy, pregnant women may be at a higher risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developing more complicated clinical events. Information on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) may provide insights into the effects of COVID-19's during pregnancy. Even though SARS and MERS have been associated with miscarriage, intrauterine death, fetal growth restriction and high case fatality rates, the clinical course of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women has been reported to be similar to that in non-pregnant women. In addition, pregnant women do not appear to be at a higher risk of catching COVID-19 or suffering from more severe disease than other adults of similar age. Moreover, there is currently no evidence that the virus can be transmitted to the fetus during pregnancy or during childbirth. Babies and young children are also known to only experience mild forms of COVID-19. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize the possible symptoms, treatments, and pregnancy outcomes of women infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy.

5.
J Clin Invest ; 2021 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1029065

ABSTRACT

Limited evidence exists regarding the use of the currently approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNtech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273) during pregnancy. In this Viewpoint, Klein et al. discuss gaps in knowledge and make recommendations to incorporate age, sex, and pregnancy in the preclinical and clincal vaccine development pipeline.

6.
Diagn Pathol ; 16(1): 8, 2021 Jan 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028621

ABSTRACT

AIMS: To explore the clinical characteristics and placental pathological changes of pregnant women with 2019 novel coronavirus (CoV) disease (COVID-19) in the third trimester, and to assess the possibility of vertical transmission. METHODS AND RESULTS: The placenta tissues were evaluated by using immunohistochemistry for inflammatory cells and Hofbauer cells, and using severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) CoV-2 RNA Fluorescence In-Situ Hybridization (FISH) and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein immunofluorescence (IF) double staining. All eight placentas from the third trimester pregnancy women were studied. All patients were cured, no clinical or serological evidence pointed to vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Features of maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) such as increased syncytial knots were present in all 8 cases (8/8), and increased focal perivillous fibrin depositions were presented in 7 cases (7/8). No significate chronic histiocytic intervillositis was noted in the placenta. The number of macrophages and inflammatory cells such as T cells, B cells and plasma cells in the placental villous was not significantly increased in all cases. Moreover, all of eight cases demonstrated negative results by FISH using a SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA probe and by IF using a monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of vertical transmission and adverse maternal-fetal outcomes in the placentas of third trimester COVID-19 pregnancy women, which provided further information for the clinical management of those women in the third trimester. However, further studies are still needed for patients with infections in different stage of gestation, especially in first and second trimester.

7.
Minerva Ginecol ; 2021 Jan 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028453

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic governments have taken actions to limit the transmission of the virus such as lockdown measures and reorganization of the local Health System. Quarantine measures have influenced pregnant women's daily lives. The aim of this study is to understand the impact of the changes imposed by COVID-19 emergency on the wellbeing of pregnant women and how the transformation of Schiavonia Hospital into a dedicated Covid Hospital affected their pregnancy experience. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Pregnant women who gave birth in Schiavonia Hospital during the period May-September 2020 have been included. The assessment examined clinical characteristics, attitudes in relation to the pandemic and how it affected birth plans, perception of information received and attitudes regards giving birth in a Covid Hospital. RESULTS: 104 women responded to the survey, with an enrolment rate of 58%. About the influence of COVID-19 pandemic, 51% of respondents reported changing some aspect of their lifestyle. The identification of Schiavonia hospital as Covid Hospital did not modify the trust in the facility and in the Obstetrics Ward for the 90% of women, in fact for the 85,6% it was the planned Birth Centre since the beginning of pregnancy. The communication was complete and exhaustive for 82,7% of the respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the Covid Hospital transformation, the women who came to give birth at Schiavonia Birth Centre rated the healthcare assistance received at high level, evidencing high affection for the structure and the healthcare workers.

8.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e042395, 2021 Jan 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028310

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen-thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients' treatment burden. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL 6857).

9.
Transfus Clin Biol ; 2021 Jan 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1026694

ABSTRACT

The National Blood Transfusion Services under the aegis of the ministry of health and family welfare, India has recently issued guidelines regarding the blood donor selection criteria and the processing of blood. Care has been taken to make the blood transfusions safer. However, COVID-19 has disrupted the organization of the voluntary blood donation drives, whole blood donations [WBD] and restricted the donors' movement to the blood transfusion centres all across the world. While sickness and the need for transfusions are very much in place, the gap of demand against blood collection has widened. Additionally, with the monsoon season at hand, and the categorical challenges of a dengue outbreak, the subsequent need for blood components especially the platelet concentrates is going to rise. Some of the criteria laid for deferring a blood donor from his or her WBD need a categorical revision, considering these unprecedented times. We, therefore, critically analyzed the blood donor selection criteria and hereby, suggest an updating regarding the pre-donation haemoglobin, sexually transmitted diseases, lactation, pregnancy and many such subheadings. We also suggest collecting smaller blood volumes in the blood bags for the optimal benefit of the recipients both for now and also as a measure of pandemic preparedness for future use.

10.
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM ; 2(4): 100229, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1025396

ABSTRACT

Both acute and chronic stress can cause allostatic overload, or long-term imbalance in mediators of homeostasis, that results in disruptions in the maternal-placental-fetal endocrine and immune system responses. During pregnancy, disruptions in homeostasis may increase the likelihood of preterm birth and preeclampsia. Expectant mothers traditionally have high rates of anxiety and depressive disorders, and many are susceptible to a variety of stressors during pregnancy. These common life stressors include financial concerns and relationship challenges and may be exacerbated by the biological, social, and psychological changes occurring during pregnancy. In addition, external stressors such as major weather events (eg, hurricanes, tornados, floods) and other global phenomena (eg, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) may contribute to stress during pregnancy. This review investigates recent literature published about the use of nonpharmacologic modalities for stress relief in pregnancy and examines the interplay between psychiatric diagnoses and stressors, with the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of implementing nonpharmacologic interventions as sole therapies or in conjunction with psychotherapy or psychiatric medication therapy. Further, the effectiveness of each nonpharmacologic therapy in reducing symptoms of maternal stress is reviewed. Mindfulness meditation and biofeedback have shown effectiveness in improving one's mental health, such as depressive symptoms and anxiety. Exercise, including yoga, may improve both depressive symptoms and birth outcomes. Expressive writing has successfully been applied postpartum and in response to pregnancy challenges. Although some of these nonpharmacologic interventions can be convenient and low cost, there is a trend toward inconsistent implementation of these modalities. Future investigations should focus on methods to increase ease of uptake, ensure each option is available at home, and provide a standardized way to evaluate whether combinations of different interventions may provide added benefit.

11.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 2020 Nov 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1025365

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, as community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 became increasingly prevalent, pregnant women seemed to be equally susceptible to developing coronavirus disease 2019. Although the disease course usually appears mild, severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 seem to lead to substantial morbidity, including intensive care unit admission with prolonged hospital stay, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and even death. Although there are recent reports regarding the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pregnancy, there is a lack of information regarding the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant women. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the outcomes of severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant vs nonpregnant, reproductive-aged women. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of women with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection hospitalized with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in 4 academic medical centers in New York City and 1 in Philadelphia between March 12, 2020, and May 5, 2020. The cases consisted of pregnant women admitted specifically for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 and not for obstetrical indications. The controls consisted of reproductive-aged, nonpregnant women admitted for severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. The primary outcome was a composite morbidity that includes the following: death, a need for intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or a need for high-flow nasal cannula O2 supplementation. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admission, length of stay, a need for discharge to long-term acute care facilities, and discharge with a home O2 requirement. RESULTS: A total of 38 pregnant women with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed infections were admitted to 5 institutions specifically for coronavirus disease 2019, 29 (76.3%) meeting the criteria for severe disease status and 9 (23.7%) meeting the criteria for critical disease status. The mean age and body mass index were markedly higher in the nonpregnant control group. The nonpregnant cohort also had an increased frequency of preexisting medical comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. The pregnant women were more likely to experience the primary outcome when compared with the nonpregnant control group (34.2% vs 14.9%; P=.03; adjusted odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-18.2). The pregnant patients experienced higher rates of intensive care unit admission (39.5% vs 17.0%; P<.01; adjusted odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-17.5). Among the pregnant women who underwent delivery, 72.7% occurred through cesarean delivery and the mean gestational age at delivery was 33.8±5.5 weeks in patients with severe disease status and 35±3.5 weeks in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 status. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 are at an increased risk for certain morbidities when compared with nonpregnant controls. Despite the higher comorbidities of diabetes and hypertension in the nonpregnant controls, the pregnant cases were at an increased risk for composite morbidity, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit admission. These findings suggest that pregnancy may be associated with a worse outcome in women with severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019. Our study suggests that similar to other viral infections such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, pregnant women may be at risk for greater morbidity and disease severity.

13.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(49): 1868-1872, 2020 Dec 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1024819

ABSTRACT

The Head Start program, including Head Start for children aged 3-5 years and Early Head Start for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women, promotes early learning and healthy development among children aged 0-5 years whose families meet the annually adjusted Federal Poverty Guidelines* throughout the United States.† These programs are funded by grants administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF). In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,§ which appropriated $750 million for Head Start, equating to approximately $875 in CARES Act funds per enrolled child. In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, most states required all schools (K-12) to close or transition to virtual learning. The Office of Head Start gave its local programs that remained open the flexibility to use CARES Act funds to implement CDC-recommended guidance (1) and other ancillary measures to provide in-person services in the early phases of community transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in April and May 2020, when many similar programs remained closed. Guidance included information on masks, other personal protective equipment, physical setup, supplies necessary for maintaining healthy environments and operations, and the need for additional staff members to ensure small class sizes. Head Start programs successfully implemented CDC-recommended mitigation strategies and supported other practices that helped to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission among children and staff members. CDC conducted a mixed-methods analysis to document these approaches and inform implementation of mitigation strategies in other child care settings. Implementing and monitoring adherence to recommended mitigation strategies reduces risk for COVID-19 transmission in child care settings. These approaches could be applied to other early care and education settings that remain open for in-person learning and potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
/prevention & control , Child Day Care Centers/organization & administration , Schools, Nursery/organization & administration , /epidemiology , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Child, Preschool , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , United States/epidemiology
14.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(2)2021 Jan 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1024580

ABSTRACT

(1) Background: A considerable number of systematic reviews, with substantial heterogeneity regarding their methods and included populations, on the impact of COVID-19 on infected pregnant women and their neonates, has emerged. The aim was to describe the obstetric-perinatal and neonatal outcome of infected pregnant women and their newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) Methods: Three bibliographical databases were searched (last search: September 10, 2020). Quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Primary outcomes included mode of delivery, preterm delivery/labor, premature rupture of membranes (PROM/pPROM) and abortions/miscarriages. Outcomes were mainly presented as ranges. A separate analysis, including only moderate and high-quality systematic reviews, was also conducted. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020214447); (3) Results: Thirty-nine reviews were analyzed. Reported rates, regarding both preterm and term gestations, varied between 52.3 and 95.8% for cesarean sections; 4.2-44.7% for vaginal deliveries; 14.3-63.8% specifically for preterm deliveries and 22.7-32.2% for preterm labor; 5.3-12.7% for PROM and 6.4-16.1% for pPROM. Maternal anxiety for potential fetal infection contributed to abortion decisions, while SARS-CoV-2-related miscarriages could not be excluded. Maternal ICU admission and mechanical ventilation rates were 3-28.5% and 1.4-12%, respectively. Maternal mortality rate was <2%, while stillbirth, neonatal ICU admission and mortality rates were <2.5%, 3.1-76.9% and <3%, respectively. Neonatal PCR positivity rates ranged between 1.6% and 10%. After accounting for quality of studies, ranges of our primary outcomes remained almost unchanged, while among our secondary outcomes, maternal ICU admission (3-10%) and mechanical ventilation rates (1.4-5.5%) were found to be relatively lower; (4) Conclusions: Increased rates of cesarean sections and preterm birth rates were found, with iatrogenic reasons potentially involved. In cases of symptomatic women with confirmed infection, high maternal and neonatal ICU admission rates should raise some concerns. The probability of vertical transmission cannot be excluded. Further original studies on women from all trimesters are warranted.

15.
Int J Clin Pract ; : e14021, 2021 Jan 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1024195

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To explore knowledge and attitude about Covid-19, among Syrian refugee mothers in the Governorate of Irbid, where the first outbreak of Covid-19 in Jordan took place. METHODS: This is a cross-section study among Syrian refugee mothers, who were pregnant or having had children. Data was collected through an online questionnaire. The survey link was distributed in April 2020, through the social network's messaging services Facebook and WhatsApp. Contact information was obtained from local community centers and non-governmental organizations in the town of Irbid, the north of Jordan. RESULTS: 389 Syrian refugee mothers participated in the study. It showed that 66% of mother's access information regarding Covid-19. The main sources of information were Facebook 87%, WhatsApp 69%, television 53%, while 21% indicated that they access professional databases or government websites. In general, Syrian refugee mothers were knowledgeable about Covid-19 transmission and prevention. However, they lacked adequate knowledge about transmission of Covid-19 between the mother and the child, and smoking risks associated with Covid-19. CONCLUSIONS: There are gaps in the knowledge and attitude of Syrian refugee mothers in the Governorate of Irbid in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. There is a need for further health education measures.

17.
J Perinatol ; 40(5): 820-826, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023850

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the perinatal aspects of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To summarize available evidence and provide perinatologists/neonatologists with tools for managing their patients. METHODS: Analysis of available literature on COVID-19 using Medline and Google scholar. RESULTS: From scant data: vertical transmission from maternal infection during the third trimester probably does not occur or likely it occurs very rarely. Consequences of COVID-19 infection among women during early pregnancy remain unknown. We cannot conclude if pregnancy is a risk factor for more severe disease in women with COVID-19. Little is known about disease severity in neonates, and from very few samples, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented in human milk. Links to websites of organizations with updated COVID-19 information are provided. Infographics summarize an approach to the pregnant woman or neonate with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: As the pandemic continues, more data will be available that could lead to changes in current knowledge and recommendations.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical/prevention & control , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pregnancy , Risk Factors
18.
Midwifery ; 92: 102877, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023716

ABSTRACT

AIM: This study aims to examine pregnancy and birth planning during COVID-19 and the effects of a tele-education offered to pregnant women for this planning process on prenatal distress and pregnancy-related anxiety. METHOD: The population of this quasi-experimental study was composed of pregnant women who applied for the antenatal education class of a public hospital in the east of Turkey during their past prenatal follow-ups and wrote their contact details in the registration book to participate in group trainings. The sample of the study consisted of a total of 96 pregnant women, including 48 in the experiment and 48 in the control groups, who were selected using power analysis and non-probability random sampling method. The data were collected between April 22 and May 13, 2020 using a "Personal Information Form", the "Revised Prenatal Distress Questionnaire (NuPDQ)" and the "Pregnancy Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised 2 (PRAQ-R2)". An individual tele-education (interactive education and consultancy provided by phone calls, text message and digital education booklet) was provided to the pregnant women in the experiment group for one week. No intervention was administered to those in the control group. The data were statistically analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, min-max values) and t-test in dependent and independent groups. RESULTS: The posttest NuPDQ total mean scores of pregnant women in the experiment and control groups were 8.75±5.10 and 11.50±4.91, respectively, whereby the difference between the groups was statistically significant (t=-2.689, p=0.008). Additionally, the difference between their mean scores on both PRAQ-R2 and its subscales of "fear of giving birth" and "worries of bearing a physically or mentally handicapped child" was statistically significant (p<0.05), where those in the experiment group had lower anxiety, fear of giving birth and worries of bearing a physically or mentally handicapped child. CONCLUSION: The tele-education offered to the pregnant women for pregnancy and birth planning during COVID-19 decreased their prenatal distress and pregnancy-related anxiety.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , Parturition/psychology , Pregnancy Complications/psychology , Pregnant Women/psychology , Telemedicine/methods , Adult , Anxiety/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/prevention & control , Surveys and Questionnaires , Turkey
20.
Contraception ; 102(6): 385-391, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1023517

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number of medically unnecessary clinical visits and in-clinic contacts monthly caused by US abortion regulations. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the number of clinical visits and clinical contacts (any worker a patient may come into physical contact with during their visit) under the current policy landscape, compared to the number of visits and contacts if the following regulations were repealed: (1) State mandatory in-person counseling visit laws that necessitate two visits for abortion, (2) State mandatory-ultrasound laws, (3) State mandates requiring the prescribing clinician be present during mifepristone administration, (4) Federal Food and Drug Administration Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone. If these laws were repealed, "no-test" telemedicine abortion would be possible for some patients. We modeled the number of visits averted if a minimum of 15 percent or a maximum of 70 percent of medication abortion patients had a "no-test" telemedicine abortion. RESULTS: We estimate that 12,742 in-person clinic visits (50,978 clinical contacts) would be averted each month if counseling visit laws alone were repealed, and 31,132 visits (142,910 clinical contacts) would be averted if all four policies were repealed and 70 percent of medication abortion patients received no-test telemedicine abortions. Over 2 million clinical contacts could be averted over the projected 18-month COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Medically unnecessary abortion regulations result in a large number of excess clinical visits and contacts. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Repeal of medically unnecessary state and federal abortion restrictions in the United States would allow for evidence-based telemedicine abortion care, thereby lowering risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Legal/legislation & jurisprudence , Ambulatory Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Cross Infection/etiology , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Unnecessary Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Abortion, Legal/methods , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , /transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Federal Government , Female , Humans , Models, Statistical , Pregnancy , Risk Factors , State Government , Telemedicine/legislation & jurisprudence , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL