Background In the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, consultations and pregnancy monitoring examinations had to be reorganised urgently. In addition, women themselves may have postponed or cancelled their medical monitoring for organisational reasons, for fear of contracting the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) or for other reasons of their own. Delayed care can have deleterious consequences for both the mother and the child. Our objective was therefore to study the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the first lockdown in France on voluntary changes by pregnant women in the medical monitoring of their pregnancy and the associated factors. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2020 using a web-questionnaire completed by 500 adult (> 18 years old) pregnant women during the first French lockdown (March–May 2020). A robust variance Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs). Results Almost one women of five (23.4%) reported having voluntarily postponed or foregone at least one consultation or pregnancy check-up during the lockdown. Women who were professionally inactive (aPR = 1.98, CI95%[1.24–3.16]), who had experienced serious disputes or violence during the lockdown (1.47, [1.00–2.16]), who felt they received little or no support (1.71, [1.07–2.71]), and those who changed health professionals during the lockdown (1.57, [1.04–2.36]) were all more likely to have voluntarily changed their pregnancy monitoring. Higher level of worry about the pandemic was associated with a lower probability of voluntarily changing pregnancy monitoring (0.66, [0.46–0.96]). Conclusions Our results can guide prevention and support policies for pregnant women in the current and future pandemics.
Background: Neonatal morbidity is associated with lifelong impairments, but the absence of a consensual definition and the need for large data sets limit research. Objectives:To inform initiatives to define standard outcomes for research, we reviewed composite neonatal morbidity indicators derived from routine hospital discharge data. Data sources:PubMed (updated on October 12, 2018). The search algorithm was based on three components: "morbidity," "neonatal," and "hospital discharge data." Study selection and data extraction: Studies investigating neonatal morbidity using a composite indicator based on hospital discharge data were included. Indicators defined for specific conditions (eg congenital anomalies, maternal addictions) were excluded. The target population, objectives, component morbidities, diagnosis and procedure codes, validation methods, and prevalence of morbidity were extracted. Synthesis:For each study, we assessed construct validity by describing the methods used to select the indicator components and evaluated whether the authors assessed internal and external validity. We also calculated confidence intervals for the prevalence of the morbidity composite.Results: Seventeen studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Indicators targeted all (n = 4), low-/moderate-risk (n = 9), and very preterm (VPT, n = 4) infants. Components were similar for VPT infants, but domains and diagnosis codes within domains varied widely for all and low-/moderate-risk infants. Component selection was described for 8/17 indicators and some form of validation reported for 12/17. Neonatal morbidity prevalence ranged from 4.6% to 9.0% of all infants, 0.4% to 8.0% of low-/ moderate-risk infants, and 17.8% to 61.0% of VPT infants. Conclusions:Multiple neonatal morbidity indicators based on hospital discharge data have been used for research, but their heterogeneity limits comparisons between studies. Standard neonatal outcome measures are needed for benchmarking and synthesis of research results. K E Y
Background Measuring infant health at birth is key for surveillance and research in obstetrics and neonatology, but there is no international consensus on morbidity indicators. The Neonatal Adverse Outcome Indicator (NAOI) is a composite indicator, developed in Australia, which measures the burden of severe neonatal morbidity using hospital discharge data. Objective To evaluate the applicability of the NAOI in France for surveillance and research. Methods We constituted a cohort of live births ≥24 weeks’ gestational age in Metropolitan France from 2014 to 2015 using hospital discharge, insurance claims and cause of death data. Outlier hospitals were identified using funnel plots of standardised morbidity ratios (SMR), and their coding patterns were assessed. We compared the NAOI and its component codes with published Australian and English data and estimated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios for known risk factors for neonatal morbidity. Results We included 1,459,123 births (511 hospitals). Twenty‐eight hospitals had SMR above funnel plot control limits. Newborns with NAOI morbidities in these hospitals had lower mortality and shorter stays than in other hospitals. Amongst within‐limit hospitals, NAOI prevalence was 4.8%, comparable to Australia (4.6%) and England (5.4%). Most individual components had a similar prevalence, with the exception of respiratory support, intravenous fluid procedures and infection. NAOI was lowest at 39 weeks (2.2%) with higher risks for maternal age ≥40 (relative risk [RR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42, 1.51), state medical insurance (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.52, 1.68), male sex (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.19, 1.23) and birthweight <3rd percentile (RR 4.60, 95% CI 4.51, 4.69). Conclusions The NAOI provides valuable information on population prevalence of severe neonatal morbidity and its risk factors. Whilst the prevalence was similar in high‐income countries with comparable neonatal mortality levels, ensuring valid comparisons between countries and hospitals will require further work to harmonize coding procedures, especially for infection and respiratory morbidity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.