Objective To show the increased risk of adverse outcomes in labour and fetomaternal morbidity in obese women (BMI > 30). Design A population-based observational study.Setting University Hospital of Wales. The study sample was drawn from the Cardiff Births Survey, a population-based database comprising of a total of 60,167 deliveries in the South Glamorgan area between 1990 and 1999. Population Primigravid women with a singleton uncomplicated pregnancy with cephalic presentation of 37 or more weeks of gestation with accurate information regarding height and weight recorded at the booking visit (measured by the midwives) were included in the study. Methods Comparisons were made between women with a body mass index of 20-30 and those with more than 30. SPSS version 10 was used for statistical analysis. Student's t test, m 2 and Fisher's exact tests were used wherever appropriate. Main outcome measures Labour outcomes assessed were risk of postdates, induction of labour, mode of delivery, failed instrumental delivery, macrosomia and shoulder dystocia. Maternal adverse outcomes assessed were postpartum haemorrhage, blood transfusion, uterine and wound infection, urinary tract infection, evacuation of uterus, thromboembolism and third-or fourth-degree perineal tears. Fetal wellbeing was assessed using Apgar <7 at 5 minutes, trauma and asphyxia, cord pH < 7.2, babies requiring neonatal ward admissions, tube feeding and incubator.

This study supports the notion of expectant management in suspected fetal macrosomia in low risk primigravid women until 40 weeks gestation. Thereafter, the safest mode of delivery is controversial, with some evidence pointing to elective cesarean section as a viable alternative in these women. A prospective RCT is needed to evaluate the best management option in terms of fetal and maternal outcome in cases of suspected macrosomia after 40 weeks' gestation.

Background: The associated risk factors, co-morbid conditions and biological differences varying with gender and age might be the cause of higher COVID-19 infection and deaths among males and older persons. The objective of this study was to predict and specify the biological attributes of variation in age and gender-based on COVID-19 status (deceased/recovered). Methods: In this retrospective study, the data was extracted from a recognised web-based portal. A total of 112,860 patients' record was filtered out and an additional 9131 records were separately analysed to examine age and gender relationship with patient's COVID-19 status (recovered/deceased). Chi-square, t-test, binary logistic regression, and longitudinal regression analysis were conducted. Results: The male COVID-19 cases (65.39%) were more than females (34.61%) and mean age of infected and recovered patients was 39.47 ± 17.59 years and 36.85 ± 18.51 years respectively. The odds for infection was significantly higher among females for lower age categories, which declines with age. The age-adjusted odds for recovery were significantly higher among females (O.R. = 1.779) and odds for recovery was highest in 5-17 years age category (O.R. = 88.286) independent of gender. Conclusion:The chances of being COVID-19 infected was higher for females of lower age categories (<35 years) which decreases with age. The odds for recovery among females was significantly higher than males. The chances of recovery declines with increasing age and the variation could be attributed to the biological differences between age categories and gender.

Background: Students act as messengers in delivering effective messages for better uptake of health-promoting behavior. Understanding their knowledge about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), intentions to use the COVID-19 vaccine, and its associated factors will help develop promising strategies in vaccine promotion concerning the current COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among students in the healthcare and non-healthcare sectors to assess their intentions to get vaccinated against the COVID-19. A non-probability snowball sampling technique was used to recruit study participants (N = 655) through social media platforms and emails. Study participants were recruited across the country, including six major geographical regions (Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern, North-east, and Central) in India between November 2020 and January 2021 before the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine. Descriptive statistics were used to present the sociodemographic, and vaccine-related behaviors of the study participants. Key determinants that likely predict vaccine acceptance among students were modeled using logistic regression analysis. For each analysis, p &lt; 0.05 was considered significant.Results: A total of 655 students were recruited, 323 from healthcare and 332 from non-healthcare sectors, to assess their intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Of the 655 students, 63.8% expressed intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The acceptance was higher among non-healthcare students (54.07 vs. 45.93%). At the time of the study, 27.8% of the students indicated that they had been exposed to a confirmed COVID-19 patient. A vast majority (93.4%) of the students knew about the COVID-19 virus, and most (89.3%) of them were aware of the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. The history of vaccine hesitancy was found to be low (17.1%). Only one-third (33.4%) of the students showed concern about contracting COVID-19. Trust in the healthcare system [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 4.13; (95% CI: 2.83–6.04), p &lt; 0.00] and trust in domestic vaccines [aOR: 1.46; (95% CI: 1.02–2.08), p &lt; 0.05] emerged as the significant predictors of student's intention to get vaccinated. Higher acceptance for vaccine was observed among students in the non-healthcare [aOR: 1.982; 95% CI: 1.334–2.946, p &lt; 0.00].Conclusion: This study shows that the Indian college students had relatively high levels of positive intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines, although about one-third were not sure or unwilling to receive the vaccine, highlighting possible vaccine hesitancy. Informational campaigns and other strategies to address vaccine hesitancy are needed to promote uptake of COVID-19 vaccines.