Professionally responsible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination counseling of obstetrical and gynecologic patients

COVID19 Vaccination Considerations for Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review

Background

Following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, pregnant women are at a higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. This study investigated whether pregnant women should get vaccinated against COVID-19 or not. Pregnant women in comparison with non-pregnant women.

Materials and Methods

This study was a systematic review that searched the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases using the keywords "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "Coronavirus Disease" OR "2019-nCoV" AND "pregnancy "OR "pregnant" AND "vaccine" OR "vaccination" from January 2020 to April 2022.

Results

Of the 37 selected studies, 15 (40.50%) declared positive views, 9 (24.30%) had inconclusive views, and 13 (35.20%) opposed vaccination due to a lack of adequate information.

Conclusions

Despite the discrepancies among the studies, one-third of the studies suggested that pregnant women be enrolled in clinical trials to investigate the outcomes of the COVID-19 vaccination on maternal and fetal outcomes. However, the majority of the studies recommended maternal immunization against COVID-19.

The nurse's role in a patient-centered approach for reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy during pregnancy: An American Academy of Nursing consensus paper

The evidence shows that COVID-19 vaccines can reduce the risks of poor pregnancy outcomes. Yet, reluctance to vaccinate remains high in pregnant populations. In this paper, we take a precision health and patient-centered approach to vaccine hesitancy. We adopted the society-to-cells vaccine hesitancy framework to identify society, community, family, individual, and physiologic factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy. Nurses are particularly well-suited to impact the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Because of their proximity to the patient, nurses are positioned to provide individualized, timely health information, and clinical guidelines to assist patients with decision-making related to vaccinations. Recommendations are provided to bolster nurses' engagement in precision health and patient-centered models of care to mitigate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and associated factors among pregnant and lactating women attending maternity care clinics in refugee camps in Jordan

BACKGROUND

Despite the advantages of vaccination in preventing maternal and fetal problems, there were many concerns in the medical community regarding vaccine safety for pregnant women, and this has put obstetricians in a challenging situation when it comes to advising their pregnant patients on whether to obtain the vaccine.

AIM

This study was performed to define the level of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination and assess the impact of COVID-19 attitudes and knowledge on vaccine acceptance between pregnant and lactating Syrian women who are seeking prenatal care services at the clinics in Azraq refugee camp in Jordan.

METHOD

A quantitative, cross-sectional study utilizing a non-probability convenience sample. A validated and reliable self-administered questionnaire consisting of four sections was used.

RESULTS

A total of 412 pregnant/lactating women was recruited The acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccine among participants was 86.5%. There was a significant positive moderate association between respondents' attitudes and knowledge around the COVID-19 vaccine and their acceptance of the vaccine (r = .468, p < .001, r = .357, p < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

To effectively mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic and achieve collective protection, decision-makers must intensify the efforts in promoting the importance of maternal vaccination, especially in vulnerable communities that suffer the most from pandemic outcomes.

Obstetric violence is a misnomer

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Is It Safe for Me to Get It? Factors Influencing COVID-19 Vaccination Decision-Making among Postpartum Women Who Are Black and Hispanic in Deep South

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccination is vital for ending the pandemic, yet safety concerns persist among pregnant and postpartum women, especially those who are Black and Hispanic. This study aims to explore factors that influence postpartum women's vaccination decision-making during pregnancy and postpartum through women's lived experiences and maternal care providers' (MCPs) observations.

METHODS

From January to August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with postpartum women who are Black and Hispanic and with MCPs. Participants were recruited from obstetric and pediatric clinics in South Carolina and had given birth in 2021. Thematic analysis was employed for data analysis.

RESULTS

The study involved 19 Black and 20 Hispanic women, along with 9 MCPs, and revealed both barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination. The factors that influence pregnant and postpartum women's decision about COVID-19 vaccine uptake included: 1) awareness of health threats associated with COVID-19 vaccines, 2) vaccine availability and accessibility, 3) vaccine-related knowledge and exposure to misinformation, 4) concerns regarding pre-existing health conditions and potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, 5) emotional factors associated with vaccination decision-making processes, 6) concerns about the well-being of infants, 7) cultural perspectives, and 8) encouragement by trusted supporters.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that reliable information, social support, and trusted MCPs' advice can motivate COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant and postpartum women who are Black and Hispanic. However, barriers such as misinformation, mistrust in the health care system, and fears of potential side effects impede vaccination uptake. Future interventions should address these barriers, consider health disparities, involve trusted MCPs, and initiate conversations about vaccines to promote vaccination among these populations.

Assessing Physician Confidence in Counseling Patients on COVID-19 Disease and Vaccination: A Survey of Physicians' Perspectives in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 vaccine has been available and well acceptable among the Saudi population since its introduction in 2020; however, concerns still remain regarding the confidence of doctors in giving such vaccines.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How confident are physicians in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia about giving counseling and advice for patients regarding COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccines?

OBJECTIVE

 To determine how confident Saudi Arabian doctors are in their ability to advise patients on the COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 vaccines.

AIM

To assist the health authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in developing and implementing programs to improve doctors' skills and knowledge in giving advice to patients about the COVID-19 vaccine.

METHOD

The research employed an online cross-sectional study methodology to gather insights from doctors employed at hospitals, healthcare centers, and clinics across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The inclusion criteria encompassed doctors actively engaged in healthcare settings, while the exclusion criteria were applied to those who had never encountered COVID-19 patients and those who declined participation in the study.

RESULTS

It was found that doctors were confident that there's a potential for adverse effects that are not yet seen in vaccine trials. Further results showed that primary health care doctors are more confident about the common side effects associated with the approved vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Most doctors were confident about the vaccine, yet they also know that there are some hidden side effects that are not yet discovered. Since patients trusted doctors as the main source of information about the vaccine, the study provided evidence to emphasize the rule of doctors as a reliable source of information.

Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccination Among Pregnant Persons in Urban Hospital-Affiliated Practices: Exploring Themes in Vaccine Hesitancy

OBJECTIVE

To explore beliefs and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine among vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant persons in order to identify reasons for both vaccine hesitancy and vaccine uptake.

METHODS

From June-August 2021, we conducted a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews with pregnant persons (n = 30). Participants were recruited from university-owned obstetric practices during prenatal and ultrasound appointments. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Of the participants, one-third (n = 10) had received the COVID-19 vaccine, while two-thirds (n = 20) were unvaccinated. Primary themes for unvaccinated participants were concern about the paucity of research on the vaccine in pregnancy and potential impact of the vaccine on both fetal development and maternal health. For vaccinated participants, main themes included potential maternal and fetal protection from COVID-19 and anticipated health complications from contracting COVID-19 as their motivations to get vaccinated. While most participants cited healthcare providers as the most trusted source of vaccine information, a majority reported that the internet was their primary source of vaccine information. Many participants wanted to learn more about the COVID-19 vaccine from their obstetric providers, and notably, most vaccinated participants reported the importance of their obstetrician in their vaccine decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among pregnant persons, with concerns for vaccine safety for their fetus, as well as for themselves, being common. Obstetric providers must therefore be prepared to address common concerns with patients during prenatal appointments, taking the time to actively recommend vaccination.

Anger: an underappreciated destructive force in healthcare

Anger is an emotional state that occurs when unexpected things happen to or around oneself and is "an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage." It is defined as "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism," an emotion characterized by tension and hostility arising from frustration, real or imagined injury by another, or perceived injustice. It can manifest itself in behaviors designed to remove the object of the anger (e.g., determined action) or behaviors designed merely to express the emotion. For the Roman philosopher Seneca anger is not an uncontrollable, impulsive, or instinctive reaction. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It seems that the year 2022 was a year when many Americans were plainly angry. "Why is everyone so angry?" the New York Times asked in the article "The Year We Lost It." We believe that Seneca is correct in that anger is unacceptable. Anger is a negative emotion that must be controlled, and Seneca provides us with the tools to avoid and destroy anger. Health care professionals will be more effective, content, and happier if they learn more about Seneca's writings about anger and implement his wisdom on anger from over 2000 years ago.

COVID-19 vaccine registry for pregnant women: policy to control complications of vaccination in pregnant women in 2021-2022

BACKGROUND

Data management related to COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women is vital to improve the treatment process and to establish preventive programs. Implementing a registry to manage data is an essential part of this process. This study aims to design a national model of the COVID-19 vaccination registry for pregnant women in Iran.

METHODS

The present study is an applied descriptive study conducted in 2021 and 2022 in two stages. In the first stage, the coordinates of the National Registry of COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women from related references and articles, as well as the comparative study of the National Registry of COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom was done. In the second stage, the preliminary model was designed. The model was validated using the Delphi technique and questionnaire tools and analyzing the data.

RESULTS

The presented national COVID-19 vaccination registry model of pregnant women's main components consist of objectives, data sources, structure, minimum data set, standards, and registry processes, all of which received 100% expert consensus.

CONCLUSION

The vaccination registry of pregnant women has a major role in managing COVID-19 vaccination data of pregnant women and can be one of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education priorities.

Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination decision-making among African American and Hispanic pregnant and postpartum women in Deep South

Background

COVID-19 vaccination is vital for ending the pandemic but concerns about its safety among pregnant and postpartum women, especially among African American (AA) and Hispanic women, persist. This study aims to explore factors that influence vaccination decision-making among AA and Hispanic pregnant and postpartum women through women's experiences and maternal care providers' (MCPs) observations.

Methods

From January and August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with AA and Hispanic women and MCPs. Participants were recruited from obstetric and pediatric clinics in South Carolina, and all births took place after March 2020. Thematic analysis was employed for data analysis.

Results

The study involved 19 AA and 20 Hispanic women, along with 9 MCPs, and revealed both barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination. The factors that influence pregnant and postpartum women's decision about COVID-19 vaccine uptake included: 1) awareness of health threats associated with COVID-19 vaccines, 2) vaccine availability and accessibility, 3) vaccine-related knowledge and exposure to misinformation, 4) concerns regarding pre-existing health conditions and potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, 5) emotional factors associated with vaccination decision-making processes, 6) concerns about the well-being of infants, 7) cultural perspectives, and 8) encouragement by trusted supporters.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that reliable information, social support, and trusted doctors' advice can motivate COVID-19 vaccination. However, barriers such as misinformation, mistrust in the health care system, and fears related to potential side effects impede vaccination uptake among AA and Hispanic pregnant and postpartum women. Future interventions should target these barriers, along with health disparities, involve trusted doctors in outreach, and initiate vaccine conversations to promote vaccination among this population.

Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women on maternal immunization against COVID-19 in Croatia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes regarding maternal COVID-19 immunization during pregnancy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed in two teaching hospitals between May and October 2021 in Zagreb, Croatia. During antenatal clinic visit pregnant women were approached and asked to fill out a predesigned questionnaire about their knowledge and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Collected data was later analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 430 women participated in the study. Only 16% of women expressed their willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 if offered, despite that 71% of them believe that COVID-19 might be a serious illness in pregnant women. The most important obstacle in having better acceptance of the vaccines is in the assumption that the vaccines are not safe for pregnant women (73%) or the fetus (75%), or that the vaccines are not effective (41%). The relationship exists between acceptance of vaccination in general and willingness to get other vaccines in pregnancy and readiness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in pregnancy. Only one out of 55 women who were not adherent to the current vaccination recommendations in Croatia would accept the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy if offered. 21 (5%) women stated that vaccination against influenza and pertussis during pregnancy is necessary and 13 (62%) of them would get vaccinated against COVID-19 if offered.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the crucial reasons for refusing vaccination against COVID-19 among pregnant women in Croatia are the concerns about the vaccines' effectiveness and safety. All healthcare providers should put more effort into education of pregnant women on risks of COVID-19, as well as on the benefits and safety of the vaccines.

COVID-19 Vaccination during Pregnancy and Lactation: Attitudes and Uptakes before and after Official Recommendations in Germany

Background: Vaccination against COVID-19 is an effective measure to mitigate the pandemic. Pregnant and breastfeeding women were not included in registration studies, so official recommendations to vaccinate this vulnerable group appeared belated. Therefore, our aims were to evaluate vaccination uptake, reasons for and against vaccination, and the changes in these depending on the official national recommendations in Germany. Methods: An anonymous online cross-sectional survey among pregnant and breastfeeding women was conducted prior to and after the publication of the official vaccination recommendation. Results: Data from the convenience sample of 5411 participants (42.9% pregnant; 57% breastfeeding) were analysed. The recommendation was known to 95% of the participants. The information was obtained mainly autonomously (61.6%) and through the media (56.9%). Vaccination uptake increased in pregnant (2.4% before vs. 58.7% after) and breastfeeding women (13.7% vs. 74.7%). As reasons to get vaccinated, pregnant women indicated more fear of the infection than of the side effects of vaccination (52.0% before vs. 66.2% after), intended protection of the baby and oneself (36.0% vs. 62.9%), and limited information about vaccination (53.5% vs. 24.4%). Conclusion: The official national recommendation is widely known and mostly obtained autonomously, thereby showing a high level of awareness and a rise in vaccination uptake. Nonetheless, targeted education campaigns focusing on scientific evidence should be maintained, whereas the engagement of health professionals should be enhanced.

Covid and pregnancy in the United States - an update as of August 2022

COVID-19 is caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The first cases of COVID-19 were identified in December 2019, and the first United States (US) case was identified on January 20th, 2020. Since then, COVID-19 has spread throughout the world and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020. As of July 2022, about 90 million persons have been infected with COVID-19 in the US, and there have been over 1 million deaths There have been 224,587 pregnant patients infected with COVID-19, and 34,527 were hospitalized. Pregnancy increases the risk of severe disease associated with COVID-19 and vaccinated patients are significantly less likely to develop severe disease. Adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes are more common among women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, especially among those with severe disease, and vaccination also protects the newborn infant. The intrauterine transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be rare. COVID-19 vaccinations and booster shots in pregnancy are safe. In addition, the available data suggest that vaccination during pregnancy is associated with the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to the fetus. The vaccination of lactating women is associated with high levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the breast milk. It is important that with future pandemics the concept of vaccine recommendations in pregnancy should be made early on to prevent maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Physicians and other healthcare professionals should strongly recommend COVID-19 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and to those who are breastfeeding.

Voices on Zika: Reproductive Autonomy and Shared Decision-Making During an Evolving Epidemic

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to understand the degree to which pregnant individuals exposed to emerging infections, such as Zika, are engaged by providers in shared decision-making and explore potential barriers to inform strategies to improve care for those most at risk for inequities. Studies have demonstrated that Latinx and Black people are less likely to engage in shared decision-making and are less engaged by providers. Limited research explores factors impacting shared decision-making in prenatal care and in the setting of recent epidemics.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study of individuals eligible for prenatal screening owing to Zika exposure during pregnancy. Given an established connection between autonomy and shared decision-making, we used the Reproductive Autonomy Scale and the Three Talk Model for shared decision-making to inform our semistructured interview guide. Interviews were conducted in Spanish or English. and participants were recruited from a federally qualified health center and a tertiary care obstetric clinic until thematic saturation was achieved. Interviews were recorded, translated, and transcribed and two coders used modified grounded theory to generate themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 participants from May to December 2017. Participant narratives demonstrated reproductive autonomy in pregnancy decision-making, with decision support from families, fatalism in pregnancy planning, and limited engagement by providers around decisions and implications of Zika virus testing. Hierarchy in provider dynamics, perceived stigma around emigration and travel, and language barriers impacted participant engagement in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants demonstrated personal autonomy in reproductive decision-making, but demonstrated limited engagement in shared decision-making with regard to prenatal Zika testing. Provider promotion of shared decision-making using culturally centered decision tools to elicit underlying beliefs and deepen context for option, choice, and decision talk is critical in prenatal counseling to support equitable outcomes during evolving pandemics.

COVID-19 vaccine and pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To explore perinatal outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-vaccinated pregnant women compared with unvaccinated counterparts.

METHODS

Search was conducted using Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, and Cochrane Library as electronic databases. We included observational studies evaluating pregnant women undergoing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and compared pregnancy and perinatal outcomes with those in unvaccinated women. Categorical variables were assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas for continuous variables, the results were expressed as mean difference with their 95% CI. All analyses were performed by adopting the random effect model of DerSimonian and Laird.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the probability of having a small-for-gestational-age fetus (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.09; P = 0.570), but we observed a reduced probability of a non-reassuring fetal monitoring, a reduced gestational age at delivery, and a reduced probability of premature delivery in vaccinated pregnant women versus unvaccinated ones.

CONCLUSION

The probability of small for gestational age is similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women, and the former also had a slightly reduced rate of premature delivery.

Evaluation of Safety Concerns for COVID-19 Immunization of Pregnant Women: a Systematic Review of Emerging Evidence

Objectives: There is an urgent need to review the status of COVID-19 vaccine immunization in pregnant women globally, so that adverse outcomes may be prevented. In this study, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the probable outcomes of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women. Materials and methods:An electronic search over three months (June 15-August 15, 2021) was conducted. Original studies evaluating safety concerns in pregnant women for COVID-19 vaccination were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 guidelines were used for data collection and reporting of findings. Results:COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women was not associated with increased adverse effects or complications to the mother as well as the developing fetus or new-born compared to non-vaccinated pregnant women. Vaccinated pregnant women showed a robust immune response against COVID-19 infection. Conclusion:COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy causes no significant health risks for the mother or the developing fetus or new-born.

Lack of clear national policy guidance on COVID-19 vaccines influences behaviors in pregnant and lactating women in Kenya

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of maternal and newborn morbidity and maternal death. In Kenya, pregnant and lactating women (PLW) were ineligible to receive COVID-19 vaccines until August 2021. How shifts in policy influence vaccine behaviors, such as health worker recommendations and vaccine uptake, is not well documented. We conducted qualitative interviews with PLW, health workers, and policymakers in Kenya to understand how different stakeholders' perceptions of national policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy shaped vaccine behaviors and decision-making. Policymakers and health workers described pervasive uncertainty and lack of communication about the national policy, cited vaccine safety as their primary concern for administering COVID-19 vaccines to PLW, and expressed that PLW were inadequately prioritized in the COVID-19 vaccine program. PLW perceived the restrictive policy as indicative of a safety risk, resulting in vaccine hesitancy and potentially exacerbated inequities in vaccine access. These findings support the need for the development and dissemination of effective vaccine communication guidelines and the prioritization of PLW in COVID-19 vaccination policies and campaigns. To ensure PLW do not face the same inequities in future epidemics, data on infectious disease burdens and vaccine uptake should be collected systematically among pregnant women, and PLW should be included in future vaccine trials.

Regional Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Moderating Role of Social Distancing and Vaccine Rollout in the U.S

This study examines the relationship between statewide contexts and individuals’ COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy by using the Household Pulse Survey, a national and near real-time data timely deployed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Controlling for the individual- and state-level variables in addition to temporal effect, this study finds that racial and ethnic minorities and COVID-19-infected people are more hesitant than their counterparts to receive a vaccine. Individuals who reside in a state where more stringent social distancing measures – particularly mask mandate – are implemented and vaccine rollout conditions are better appear to be less hesitant to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Vulnerable subpopulation groups such as people of color and COVID-19-infected individuals are more hesitant to vaccine uptake even if regional circumstances are equal. These findings suggest that the continuation and extension of vaccine campaigns at the regional as well as individual levels are all important for expediting COVID-19 vaccination and reducing vaccine hesitancy as the world is in the middle of the third year of the pandemic.

Attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to survey pregnant and lactating toward COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan and determine the predictors of this attitude.

METHODS

This study used a 10 min anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey to collect data. The survey was carried out between September and October 2021. Eligible study participants included all pregnant and lactating women in Jordan. The participants were recruited through social media, midwives, and gynecologists. Survey was used to collect data from the participants.

RESULTS

The mean attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID vaccination was moderate 71 (SD=100.5). Many factors were predicted the attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination. The factors were source of data regarding COVID-19 (B=-0.140, p=0.009), level of income (B=-0.141, p=0.009), and social status (B=0.130, p=0.034). These results mean lower income, people who frequently hearing news from news channel or ministry of health and married are showed more positive attitude toward COVID-19 vaccination for children.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a large national study regarding attitude of pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination in Jordan. This study found that more than 50% for the parents were hesitant to allow their children to receive COVID-19 vaccination. There were no differences between pregnant and lactating women toward COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy

Despite a recent endorsement from official and professional bodies unequivocally recommending COVID-19 vaccination, vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people remains high. The accumulated evidence demonstrates that pregnant people are a special risk group for COVID-19, with an increased risk of intensive care unit admission, extracorporeal membranous oxygenation requirement, preterm birth, and perinatal death. These risks are further increased with some variants of concern, and vaccination of pregnant people reduces the COVID-19-related increase in maternal or fetal morbidity. Data from more than 180,000 vaccinated persons show that immunization against COVID-19 with an mRNA vaccine is safe for pregnant people. Many observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant people have had reassuring findings and did not demonstrate harmful effects on pregnancy or the newborn. Immunization with mRNA vaccines does not increase the risk of miscarriage, preterm delivery, low birthweight, maternal or neonatal intensive care unit admission, fetal death, fetal abnormality, or pulmonary embolism. Moreover, observational data corroborate the findings of randomized trials that mRNA vaccination is highly effective at preventing severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant people, emphasizing that the potential maternal and fetal benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the potential risks of vaccination. Ensuring pregnant people have unrestricted access to COVID-19 vaccination should be a priority in every country worldwide.

Characteristics and perceptions associated with COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the frequency and associated characteristics of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant and postpartum individuals.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Prenatal care at a single academic tertiary care centre.

POPULATION

Pregnant and postpartum individuals enrolled in prenatal care at a single academic tertiary care centre from 22 March 2021 to 2 April 2021, concurrent with state guidelines recommending COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

METHODS

We used logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and adjusted for: age, parity, race, trimester of pregnancy, and chronic comorbidities.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, defined as uncertainty or refusal of the vaccine, despite the availability of vaccine services, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

Of the 485 individuals screened and approached, 456 (94%) enrolled and completed the survey (435/456, 95% pregnant). The frequency of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was 46% (95% CI 41%-51%). Sociodemographic characteristics, including non-Hispanic Black race, younger age, lower education, public health insurance receipt, parity >1, and reported substance use, were associated with a higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, but not clinical risk conditions. Individuals who had a family or friend vaccinated for COVID-19, prior or planned vaccination for tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) and/or influenza, and who perceived that vaccination benefited the baby were less likely to express COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was frequent among pregnant and postpartum individuals. Those who may face barriers to accessing healthcare services were more likely to report vaccine hesitancy. These results can inform interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnancy.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy is frequent among pregnant and postpartum individuals, and those who face barriers to accessing healthcare services are more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

John Stuart Mill is relevant to COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy today

The scientific evidence about COVID-19 and pregnancy is conclusive: COVID-19 infections increase the risk of stillbirths and preterm births, and pregnant and postpartum patients are more likely to get severely ill with COVID-19 and die when compared with people who are not pregnant. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine protects from severe illness from COVID-19 and risk of death. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for pregnant patients, those trying to conceive, and who are breastfeeding, or might become pregnant in the future. The justification for government involvement in public health measures that restrict personal liberty that we are so familiar with today emanated from a philosophical source at the same time as the progress in managing infectious disease. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an empiricist and a utilitarian, was not specifically addressing the ethics of public health in his classic On Liberty (1859), but his arguments have become the reference point for liberal democracies and public health measures. Mill was in search of a philosophical principle that could justify constraints on personal freedom. John Stuart Mill gives direct guidance to our approach supporting not only strong recommendations for pregnant patients to accept vaccinations against COVID-19 but also for those working in healthcare setting to be required to be vaccinated. This approach is respectful to our patient's liberty while doing all that's reasonable to protect them from harm. Based on our professional experience we recognize that some physicians and patients have fixed false beliefs. Physicians espousing fixed false beliefs against COVID-19 vaccines should be censured.

Reversing physician hesitancy to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant patients

Physician hesitancy is said to occur when physicians do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination, and it is a contributing factor for the low vaccination rate for COVID-19 in pregnant women. Physician hesitancy has become a major, unaddressed problem with regard to the quality and safety of obstetrical care. We identify 3 root causes of physician hesitancy and describe how professional ethics in obstetrics should guide in reversing these root causes. They are clinical misapplications of key components of professionally responsible obstetrical practice: therapeutic nihilism, shared decision-making, and respect for patient autonomy. Therapeutic nihilism directs the obstetrician to avoid any clinical interventions during pregnancy to prevent teratogenic effects that might be unknown. Therapeutic nihilism is misapplied when there is a documented net clinical benefit with no evidence of clinical harm. Shared decision directs the obstetrician to only offer but not recommend clinical management. Shared decision-making plays a major role when there is uncertainty in clinical judgment but is misapplied when it becomes a universal model. It does not apply when there is a net clinical benefit. When there is a net clinical benefit, clinical management should be recommended, not simply offered. The ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy plays an indispensable role in decision-making with patients. It is misapplied when it is assumed that respect for autonomy requires physicians not to make recommendations and to defer to and implement patients' decisions without exception. There is evidence that the obstetrician's recommendations about the management of pregnancy are the most important factor in a pregnant woman's decision-making. Simply deferring to the patient's decisions makes for misapplied respect for patient autonomy. Obstetricians must end physician hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women by reversing these 3 root causes of physician hesitancy. Reversing the root causes of physician hesitancy is an urgent matter of patient safety. The longer physician hesitancy continues and the longer the low vaccine acceptance rate of pregnant women lasts, preventable serious diseases, deaths of pregnant women, intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, and other maternal and fetal complications of unvaccinated women will continue to occur. Physician hesitancy should not be permitted to influence the response to future pandemics.

Intention to Receive COVID-19 Vaccine during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the level of intent to receive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and demographical factors influencing vaccine uptake among pregnant individuals.

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed, Scopus, and archive/pre-print servers were searched up to May 22nd, 2021. Cross sectional surveys reporting the percentage of the pregnant individuals intending to get a COVID-19 vaccine were considered eligible for meta-analysis. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021254484). The primary outcome was to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination intent among pregnant population. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the factors influencing the intention for vaccination.

RESULTS

Twelve studies sourcing data of 16,926 individuals who were identified as pregnant were eligible. The estimated intention for the receipt of COVID-19 vaccine among women who were pregnant was 47% (95% CI: 38-57%), with the lowest prevalence in Africa 19% (95% CI: 17-21%) and the highest in Oceania 48.0% (95% CI: 44.0-51.0%). Uptake of other vaccines (influenza and/or TdaP) during pregnancy was associated with higher rate of intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (OR = 3.03; 95% CI: 1.37-6.73; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The intent to receive COVID-19 vaccine is relatively low among women who are pregnant and substantially varies based on the country of residence. In our meta-analysis, intent of women who were pregnant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly associated with the history of receiving influenza or TdaP vaccine during pregnancy. Given that in every country only a minority of gravidae have received the COVID-19 vaccine, despite known risks of maternal morbidity and mortality with no evidence of risks of vaccination, it highlights the importance of revised approaches at shared decision making and focused public health messaging by national and international advisories.

KEY POINTS

· The estimated global intention for COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women was 47%.. · The lowest intention was in Africa and the highest in Oceania.. · These findings highlight the importance of public health messaging by by different agencies..

The risk factors and pregnant women's willingness toward the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in various countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Pregnant women will benefit from research on immunization during pregnancy because they will have more accurate information on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors and pregnant women's desire to get the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in various countries.

Methods

A search of PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCO for related publications published (January and December 2021) on risk factors and pregnant women's desire to get the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in various countries. The Pooled Odds Ratio (POR) were calculated using fixed and random-effect analysis. The I-squared formula was used to calculate the heterogeneity. Egger's and Begg's tests were used to identify study bias. STATA 16.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

This study revealed good practice has the highest POR (8.99), followed by received influenza vaccine last year (2.72), high perception of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (2.70), >35 years (2.01), sufficient information about the SARS-COV-2 vaccine (1.94), higher school education (1.84), and third trimester (1.35) with pregnant women's desire toward the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The heterogeneity analysis revealed homogenous among risk factors in >35 years, high perception of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, good practice, and third trimester (I² ≤ 50%). In the articles combined in this study, there was no indication of study bias.

Conclusion

The insights of this study might help the authorities in determining the most effective strategy to deploy SARS-CoV-2 mass immunization campaigns for pregnant women.

COVID-19 vaccine and pregnancy: A Safety weapon against pandemic

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is raising great concern all over the world. The recent introduction of vaccines has offered reason for optimism, however, new issues have arisen, such as vaccine reluctance. The safety of vaccines for pregnant women is one of the most serious of these concerns. The purpose of this review article is to provide updated international vaccine recommendations, results of ongoing studies and clinical trials, and the role of gynecologists in counseling the women to understand the risks versus benefits as well as form an informed decision towards vaccine acceptance for COVID-19.

Although COVID-19 infection increases the risk of severe morbidity and mortality in pregnant women, pregnant women were not included in the initial vaccine trials. As a result, safety information is scarce. Nations have differing recommendations, though many have recently approved the COVID-19 immunization in pregnancy following a risk-benefit analysis. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) of the United Kingdom recently approved an mRNA vaccination for pregnant women. Vaccination is recommended by the CDC, ACOG, ARFM, and WHO. India recently took a stand, with the ICMR and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare recommending vaccination during pregnancy and lactation.

Worldwide beliefs among pregnant women on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been recommended to pregnant women, but survey studies showed contrasting findings worldwide in relation to the willingness to accept vaccination during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence from the literature regarding the acceptance rate of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a systematic review on the main databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, ISI Web of Science) searching for all the peer-reviewed survey studies analyzing the eventual acceptance rate of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among pregnant and breastfeeding women. To combine data meta-analyses of proportions and pooled proportions with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

15 studies including 25,839 women were included in the analysis. The proportion of women actually willing to be vaccinated during pregnancy is 49.1% (95% CI, 42.3-56.0), and the proportion of breastfeeding women is 61.6% (95% CI, 50.0-75.0).

CONCLUSION

The cumulative SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance rate among pregnant women appears still low. Vaccinal campaign are urgently needed to drive more confidence into the vaccine to help reducing the spread of the infection and the possible consequences during pregnancy.

Worldwide beliefs among pregnant women on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been recommended to pregnant women, but survey studies showed contrasting findings worldwide in relation to the willingness to accept vaccination during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence from the literature regarding the acceptance rate of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a systematic review on the main databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, ISI Web of Science) searching for all the peer-reviewed survey studies analyzing the eventual acceptance rate of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among pregnant and breastfeeding women. To combine data meta-analyses of proportions and pooled proportions with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

15 studies including 25,839 women were included in the analysis. The proportion of women actually willing to be vaccinated during pregnancy is 49.1% (95% CI, 42.3-56.0), and the proportion of breastfeeding women is 61.6% (95% CI, 50.0-75.0).

CONCLUSION

The cumulative SARS-CoV-2 vaccine acceptance rate among pregnant women appears still low. Vaccinal campaign are urgently needed to drive more confidence into the vaccine to help reducing the spread of the infection and the possible consequences during pregnancy.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in a multi-ethnic UK healthcare workforce: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcomes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is now available for frontline UK HCWs; however, demographic/occupational associations with vaccine uptake in this cohort are unknown. We sought to establish these associations in a large UK hospital workforce.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining vaccine uptake amongst all staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. We examined proportions of vaccinated staff stratified by demographic factors, occupation, and previous COVID-19 test results (serology/PCR) and used logistic regression to identify predictors of vaccination status after adjustment for confounders. We included 19,044 HCWs; 12,278 (64.5%) had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Compared to White HCWs (70.9% vaccinated), a significantly smaller proportion of ethnic minority HCWs were vaccinated (South Asian, 58.5%; Black, 36.8%; p < 0.001 for both). After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, occupation, SARS-CoV-2 serology/PCR results, and COVID-19-related work absences, factors found to be negatively associated with vaccine uptake were younger age, female sex, increased deprivation, pregnancy, and belonging to any non-White ethnic group (Black: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.26-0.34, p < 0.001; South Asian: aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.72, p < 0.001). Those who had previously had confirmed COVID-19 (by PCR) were less likely to be vaccinated than those who had tested negative. Limitations include data being from a single centre, lack of data on staff vaccinated outside the hospital system, and that staff may have taken up vaccination following data extraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as younger staff and female staff are less likely to take up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These findings have major implications for the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, in HCWs and the wider population, and should inform the national vaccination programme to prevent the disparities of the pandemic from widening.

Factors affecting the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine in the postpartum period

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly around the world, causing massive morbidity and mortality. Vaccination during puerperium protects both the mother and the newborn and is important to keep the pandemic under control.

METHODS

Women who gave birth at Ankara City Hospital between February 11, 2021 and March 21, 2021 were included. Data were collected through a face-to-face questionnaire.

RESULTS

We asked 412 postpartum women were surveyed about their acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine; 137 (33.3%) of them wanted to be vaccinated, while 275 (66.7%) of them did not want to be vaccinated. Reasons for vaccination rejection; 209 (76%) of them stated that there was not enough information about the safety of the vaccine for the postpartum period, and 89 (32.4%) of them thought that the vaccine would not be effective for the disease. Three of the answers in the survey were found significantly different in high-risk pregnancy (HRP) group compared to low-risk pregnancy (LRP) group; 1) Having their babies to be vaccinated, 2) To be vaccinated if it will be recommended to the puerperal women, and 3) Feeling anxious about being infected by SARS-CoV-2 (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Health authorities recommend the COVID-19 vaccine to breastfeeding mothers. However, a relatively low vaccination acceptance rate was observed in the present study. For newly developed vaccines, concern over vaccine safety is the biggest obstacle to vaccine administration. Therefore, the reasons that influence acceptance or refusal of vaccines are important for developing targeted communication strategies and healthcare policies.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccination recommendations in special populations and patients with existing comorbidities

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is a crucial step in ending the current worldwide pandemic. However, several particularly vulnerable groups in the population were not included in sufficient numbers in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) vaccine trials. Therefore, as science advances, the advice for vaccinating these special populations against Covid‐19 will continue to evolve. This focused review provides the latest recommendations and considerations for these special populations (i.e., patients with rheumatologic and autoimmune disorders, cancer, transplant recipients, chronic liver diseases, end‐stage renal disease, neurologic disorders, psychiatric disorders, diabetes mellitus, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, human immunodeficiency virus, current smokers, pregnant and breastfeeding women, the elderly, children, and patients with allergic reactions) using the currently available research evidence.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs.

METHODS

Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis.

FINDINGS

11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks.

INTERPRETATION

Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Emphasis should be placed on the safety and benefit of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy and in those with previous COVID-19. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks.

FUNDING

UKRI-MRC and NIHR.

Flu and Tdap Maternal Immunization Hesitancy in Times of COVID-19: An Italian Survey on Multiethnic Sample

Background: Tdap and flu immunization in pregnancy has been proven to be both effective and safe. Despite this, the vaccination rate in pregnant women is low in Italy. The COVID-19 pandemic has focused the attention of public opinion on communicable diseases, underlining the importance of primary prevention measures such as vaccination. We conducted a survey to investigate the behavior of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding maternal immunization to identify the reasons for vaccine hesitancy in order to overcome them. The new challenge is COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, and preliminary data show hesitancy towards it. Our analysis may be useful to improve immunization in the pregnant population, including through the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: A targeted survey was performed in Italy including 520 women who experienced in the first trimester of pregnancy, prior to the novel coronavirus spread, the 2019–2020 influenza vaccination campaign and the Tdap vaccine recommendation in the third trimester during the COVID pandemic. They represent a unique model to investigate if the new coronavirus outbreak might have changed attitudes towards vaccination in pregnancy in the same patients. Data were collected from a self-completed paper questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated and percentages were compared using the chi-2 test or Fisher’s exact test. Results: We obtained data from 195 of the 520 women who gave birth during the inclusion period; 325 cases declined to participate in the survey. A total of 8.7% (17 cases) performed flu vaccination in the first trimester of pregnancy (pre-COVID era), 50.8% (99 cases) accepted Tdap immunization during their third trimester of gestation (COVID-19 pandemic) and 6.7% (13 cases) received both vaccines during pregnancy. For both the flu and Tdap shots, pregnant patients were more likely to accept the vaccines if they were recommended by a healthcare provider, whereas the main reason not to be vaccinated was the lack of such a recommendation. Conclusions: Our survey shows that the COVID-19 experience, which has raised awareness as to the role of vaccines in preventable diseases, may positively change attitudes toward immunization in pregnancy. Vaccination must be recommended to all pregnant women and organized during routine prenatal care as an important element for the prevention of communicable diseases. Vaccination hesitancy can be minimized through consistent recommendation to all pregnant women offered by obstetric staff during routine prenatal care. This approach is likely to be effective in terms of building trust in flu and Tdpa immunization among pregnant women, as well as to avoid unjustified hesitancy towards the more recent COVID-19 vaccines.

The Approach of Pregnant Women to Vaccination Based on a COVID-19 Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: Pregnant women are more likely to develop a more severe course of COVID-19 than their non-pregnant peers. There are many arguments for the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review concerning the approach of pregnant women towards vaccination against COVID-19, with particular regard to determinants of vaccination acceptance. Materials and Methods: Articles were reviewed in which the aim was to evaluate—via a survey or questionnaire—the acceptance and decision to undergo vaccination against COVID-19. The articles were subjected to review according to recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA). Results: In various studies, the percentage of pregnant women accepting the COVID-19 vaccine was between 29.7% and 77.4%. The strongest factors co-existing with the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy were trust in the importance and effectiveness of the vaccine, explicit communication about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women, acceptance of other vaccinations such as those for influenza, belief in the importance of vaccines/mass vaccination in one’s own country, anxiety about COVID-19, trust in public health agencies/health science, as well as compliance to mask guidelines. The remaining factors were older age, higher education, and socioeconomic status. Conclusions: This review allowed us to show that geographic factors (Asian, South American countries) and pandemic factors (different threats and risks from infection) significantly influence the acceptance of vaccines. The most significant factors affecting acceptance are those related to public awareness of the risk of infection, vaccine safety, and the way in which reliable information about the need and safety of vaccines is provided. Professional and reliable patient information by obstetricians and qualified medical personnel would significantly increase the level of confidence in vaccination against COVID-19.

Perspectives on administration of COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant and lactating women: a challenge for low- and middle-income countries

Women who are in the pregnancy-puerperal cycle or are lactating have been deliberately excluded from participating in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials that aimed to evaluate either the efficacy of the vaccines in inducing the formation of neutralizing antibodies or the investigational products' safety profile. The exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from such studies certainly and inequitably denies these women access to COVID-19 vaccines, since these products have become increasingly available to nonpregnant people and even to those who are pregnant and are in high-income settings. In this clinical opinion article, we discuss some aspects of the prolonged pandemic, the emergence of viral variants, the risks of severe complications of COVID-19 in pregnant women, and the disproportionate impact of the above on low- and middle-income countries. We argue that the decision to receive the COVID-19 vaccine should be a joint decision between the pregnant or lactating women and the healthcare providers, while considering the available data on vaccine efficacy, safety, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women, and the women's individual risks for infection and serious illness. The various types of vaccines that are already in use and their safety, effectiveness, and the potential risks and benefits of their administration to pregnant or lactating women are also reviewed.

Newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia in a pregnant patient after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination

Over 26 million cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) have been reported in the United States with over 440 000 deaths. Despite COVID‐19 vaccine approval, pregnant women were excluded from clinical trials. We report a case of immune thrombocytopenia in the first trimester, which occurred 13 days after initiating the COVID‐19 vaccination series. Thorough evaluation, including hematology consultation, established the diagnosis. High‐dose oral corticosteroids were started, and she was discharged home with significant improvement in platelet count on her fourth day of hospitalization with no subsequent complications. We advocate that the benefits of COVID‐19 vaccination outweigh the risk of infection in pregnancy and that pregnant women should be included in clinical trials. Closer post‐vaccination surveillance may be warranted in the pregnant population pending further data.

Perspectives on COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women in South Africa

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic that has created a global health crisis and upended conventional methodologies, both in the governance and clinical structures of Health Care Systems. The spread of COVID-19 has necessitated a coordinated public health response in an effective, extensive and expedited vaccination rollout strategy with the ultimate aim of limiting all nidi of infection for the pathogen. For this goal to be realised, pregnant women, as a cohort, cannot reasonably be excluded from this initiative, despite the initial reluctance to include them in clinical trials for various ethical and legal reasons. Weighing the detrimental complications of COVID-19 on maternal and perinatal outcomes against the hypothetical risk of vaccination in the context of promising, albeit indirect, safety and efficacy data, this report argues that all pregnant women should be offered the choice of whether or not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine based on the available evidence and their individualised risk-benefit ratio.

A reasoned approach towards administering COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women

There are over 50 SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines undergoing Phase II and III clinical trials. Several vaccines have been approved by regulatory authorities and rolled out for use in different countries. Due to concerns of potential teratogenicity or adverse effect on maternal physiology, pregnancy has been a specific exclusion criterion for most vaccine trials with only two trials not excluding pregnant women. Thus, other than limited animal studies, gradually emerging development and reproductive toxicity data, and observational data from vaccine registries, there is a paucity of reliable information to guide recommendations for the safe vaccination of pregnant women. Pregnancy is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, especially in women with comorbidities, resulting in increased rates of preterm birth and maternal morbidity. We discuss the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, their mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety profile and possible benefits to the maternal-fetal dyad to create a rational approach towards maternal vaccination while anticipating and mitigating vaccine-related complications. Pregnant women with high exposure risks or co-morbidities predisposing to severe COVID-19 infection should be prioritised for vaccination. Those with risk factors for adverse effects should be counselled accordingly. It is essential to support patient autonomy by shared decision-making involving a risk-benefit discussion with the pregnant woman.

Barriers and Facilitators Associated With Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake Among Pregnant Women in High Income Countries: A Mini-Review

Vaccination during pregnancy is a safe and effective intervention to protect women from potentially severe consequences of influenza and reduce risk of influenza and pertussis in their infants. However, coverage remains variable. In this mini-review we update findings from a 2015 systematic review to describe results from recent studies in high income countries on the uptake of influenza and pertussis vaccination in pregnancy, reasons for vaccine hesitancy and barriers to increasing uptake, from maternal and healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives. Studies reported highly variable uptake (from 0% to 78%). A main facilitator for uptake among pregnant women was receiving a recommendation from their HCP. However, studies showed that HCP awareness of guidelines did not consistently translate into them recommending vaccines to pregnant women. Safety concerns are a well-established barrier to uptake/coverage of maternal immunization; 7%-52% of unvaccinated women gave safety concerns as a reason but these were also present in vaccinated women. Knowledge/awareness gaps among pregnant women and lack of confidence among HCPs to discuss vaccination were both important barriers. Several studies indicated that midwives were more likely to express safety concerns than other HCPs, and less likely to recommend vaccination to pregnant women. Women who perceived the risk of infection to be low were less likely to accept vaccination in several studies, along with women with prior vaccine refusal. Findings highlight the importance of further research to explore context-specific barriers to vaccination in pregnancy, which may include lack of vaccine confidence among pregnant woman and HCPs, and policy and structural factors.

Management and Prevention of COVID-19 in Pregnancy and Pandemic Obstetric Care: A Review of Current Practices

Constant accumulation of data results in continuous updates of guidelines and recommendations on the proper management of pregnant women with COVID-19. This study aims to summarize the up-to-date information about the prevention and management of suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in obstetric patients and obstetric care during prenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed for relevant English-written full-text reviews. We also included relevant guidelines and recommendations. In women with a low risk for infection and uncomplicated pregnancy, elective and non-urgent appointments should be postponed or completed through telehealth. Vaccination should be discussed and distance and personal hygiene preventive measures should be recommended. Routine ultrasound examinations should be adjusted in order to minimize exposure to the virus. Standardized criteria should evaluate the need for admission. Women with moderate/high-risk for infection should be isolated and tested with RT-PCR. The mode and timing of delivery should follow routine obstetric indications. In case of infection, glucocorticoids are recommended in critically ill pregnant women, after individualized evaluation. During labor and concomitant infection, the duration of the first two stages should be reduced as possible to decrease aerosolization, while minimization of hemorrhage is essential during the third stage. Close maternal monitoring and adequate oxygenation when necessary always remain a prerequisite. Discharge should be considered on the first or second day postpartum, also depending on delivery mode. Breastfeeding with protective equipment is recommended, as its benefits outweigh the risks of neonatal infection. Recommendations are currently based on limited available data. More original studies on infected pregnant women are needed to establish totally evidence-based protocols of care for these patients.