Pregnant women's perceptions of risks and benefits when considering participation in vaccine trials

The risk tolerance and decision-making processes of Australian women regarding medication trials in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women have historically been excluded from participation in medication trials, in part due to the perceived risks of drug exposure to mothers and fetuses. However, little is known about pregnant women's attitudes toward risk and participation in such trials.

AIMS

To address this knowledge gap and to identify factors that influence trial participation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Australian women over the age of 18, currently pregnant or within six months of delivery, were recruited to participate in an online survey (n = 623) and follow-up interviews (n = 11). The survey investigated willingness to participate in five hypothetical drug trial scenarios of varying risk. Demographic and obstetric information, including COVID-19 vaccination status, was also collected. The impact of these factors on trial participation was analysed using ordinal regression. Interviews were subjected to thematic framework analysis using a priori and emergent themes.

RESULTS

Nearly half of the respondents (48%) indicated a willingness to participate in at least one of the hypothetical trials. As trial risk increased participation likelihood decreased, especially if the risk was to the fetus, regardless of benefits to the mother. COVID-19 vaccination status and medication hesitancy were predictors of an unwillingness to participate. Three broad themes emerged from the qualitative data: risk-benefit analysis, quality of evidence, and trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants expressed a positive attitude toward research and medication trials during pregnancy, but were concerned about fetal risk. The findings of this study may help enhance trial design and the participation of pregnant women in medication trials.

Understanding willingness and barriers to participate in clinical trials during pregnancy and lactation: findings from a US study

BACKGROUND

Due to the exclusion of pregnant and lactating people from most clinical trials, there is an incomplete understanding of the risks and benefits of medication use in these populations and therapeutic decision-making is often conducted without adequate evidence. To change this paradigm, it is imperative to understand the perspectives of pregnant and lactating individuals concerning their participation in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To describe attitudes, perceptions, barriers, and preferences of pregnant and postpartum people in the United States (US) regarding participation in clinical trials and to identify factors influencing participation.

METHODS

In November 2022, individuals aged ≥ 18 residing in the US who self-identified as pregnant or pregnant within the last 12 months were invited to complete an online survey about their perspectives regarding clinical trial participation. The survey included questions about demographic characteristics, health history, behaviors, and willingness to participate in clinical trials while pregnant and/or lactating. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to identify predictors of clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

Among the 654 respondents, 34.8% and 40.9% reported being likely or extremely likely to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication while pregnant or lactating, respectively; and 24.5% and 41.7% for a new vaccine while pregnant or lactating, respectively. Higher educational attainment (≥ Bachelor's degree) was associated with greater likelihood of clinical trial participation in pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.50, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.01, 2.25 for medications; OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.28, 3.12 for vaccines). Chronic medical conditions were associated with a greater likelihood of participation in clinical trials for vaccines during lactation (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.36). The most cited motivator for participation in a clinical trial while pregnant or lactating was anticipated personal medical benefit (85.8% and 75.6%, respectively), while the primary deterrent was possible risk to the fetus or baby (97.9% and 97.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Willingness of a US sample to participate in clinical trials while pregnant or lactating varied by demographics and health status, with safety to the fetus being a nearly universal concern. These findings have implications for enhancing inclusion of pregnant and lactating people in clinical research and developing effective and equitable recruitment strategies.

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.

Exploring the consent process among pregnant and breastfeeding women taking part in a maternal vaccine clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The involvement of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials presents unique challenges for the informed consent process. We explored the expectations and experiences of the pregnant women, spouses/partners, health workers and stakeholders of the consent process during a Group B Streptococcus maternal vaccine trial.

METHODS

We interviewed 56 participants including pregnant women taking part in the trial, women not in the trial, health workers handling the trial procedures, spouses, and community stakeholders. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 23 women in the trial, in-depth interviews with 5 spouses, and 5 women not in the trial, key informant interviews with 5 health workers and 5 other stakeholders were undertaken.

RESULTS

Decision-making by a pregnant woman to join a trial was done in consultation with spouse, parents, siblings, or trusted health workers. Written study information was appreciated by all but they suggested the use of audio and visual presentation to enhance understanding. Women stressed the need to ensure that their male partners received study information before their pregnant partners joined a clinical trial. Confidentiality in research was emphasised differently by individual participants; while some emphasised it for self, others were keen to protect their family members from being exposed, for allowing them to be involved in research. However, others wanted their community participation to be acknowledged.

CONCLUSION

We found that pregnant women make decisions to join a clinical trial after consulting with close family. Our findings suggest the need for an information strategy which informs not only the pregnant woman, but also her family about the research she is invited to engage in.

Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.

The inclusion of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials: An overview of late-stage clinical trials' records between 2018 and 2023

Pregnant women are generally excluded from clinical research over safety concerns. However, demands to include them in clinical vaccine development have intensified after recent COVID-19, Ebola, and Lassa fever outbreaks given the disproportionate effect of these diseases on pregnant women and/or their foetuses. Numerous studies highlighted the scarcity of safety data for therapeutic interventions in pregnant women. Nevertheless, only a small number have assessed the number of vaccine trials including this population. Therefore, we searched for phase 3 and 4 vaccine clinical trials in healthy populations registered between 2018 and 2023 in clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. Out of 400 registered vaccine trials matching our inclusion criteria, 217 (54 %) were industry-sponsored, and 222 (56 %) had COVID-19 as a target. We found 22 studies (6 %) that either were designed for pregnant women or included them as part of a larger population. Out of these 22 trials, 13 were designed specifically for pregnant women; seven of these were maternal vaccines aiming at protecting the foetus, namely pertussis (3), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (3), and meningitis plus tetanus (1) vaccines, and six others targeted either flu (3), COVID-19 (2) or Ebola (1). Only the RSV and Ebola vaccine trials were industry-sponsored. We also found that nine studies targeting the general population included pregnant women. These focused on COVID-19 (3), flu (2), COVID-19 + flu (2), Ebola (1), and Hepatitis B (1). None of these studies was industry-sponsored. Our findings show that a gap still exists in terms of pregnant women's inclusion in vaccine trials. Such a gap needs to be tackled urgently to minimise the devastating effects that a future infectious disease outbreak could have on this population. This study can inform future demands for increased inclusion, especially in industry-sponsored trials, as it provides an overview of the current vaccine trials scene.

Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance among Pregnant Women: A Cross Sectional Study from Abha City, Saudi Arabia

Background: Pregnant women can get infected with COVID-19 with serious sequelae to them and their fetus. Concerns about COVID-19 vaccination safety to mothers and babies, and doubts about its effectiveness, have hindered vaccine acceptance throughout the COVID-19 crisis. The objective of the current investigation was to estimate COVID-19 acceptance rates among pregnant women in Abha city, Aseer region, Saudi Arabia, and determine its clinical and demographic correlates. Method: Descriptive questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey of a sample of pregnant women attending regular antenatal care services in Abha. We used backward stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis to evaluate the predictability of vaccine acceptance in terms of baseline clinical and demographic factors. Results: The survey included 572 pregnant women. The prevalence of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine was high (93.7%; 95%CI: 91.7-95.7%). University graduates and women with a later gestational age were more likely to accept vaccination (OR = 6.120, p = 0.009), (t = 2.163, p = 0.036), respectively. Confidence in vaccine safety was associated with better acceptance (OR = 3.431, p = 0.001). Conclusions: The acceptance rate for vaccination among pregnant women in Abha, Saudi Arabia, is higher compared to international rate. However, our results indicate that confidence in vaccine safety was associated with better acceptance. Hence, vaccine safety was the overarching predictor for harboring positive attitudes towards it. Public health policies should capitalize on such positive attitudes and aim for total coverage of pregnant women with COVID-19 vaccination including booster dosages.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

Prospective Attitudes towards Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccination: Validation of a Survey Instrument among Young Females in Jordan Pending Vaccine Authorization

In May 2023, the U.S. FDA advisors endorsed Pfizer's pregnancy-administered vaccine (branded ABRYSVO) to protect infants from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. Vaccination can reduce the burden of RSV-related respiratory disease, with previous studies showing its substantial medical and financial burden in Jordan. However, pregnant women may exhibit hesitancy to get vaccinated due to concerns about potential risks to themselves or their fetuses. This study aimed to assess the acceptance of the RSV vaccine among young females and identify the determinants influencing their decision using a newly constructed instrument. A survey instrument was developed and validated, comprising 26 items to measure RSV vaccine acceptance. A cross-sectional study design was employed, with data collection from a sample of females aged 18 to 45 residing in Jordan during 5-6 July 2023, using a convenient approach via an online distributed questionnaire. The final study sample comprised 315 respondents, with 67.6% who have heard of RSV before the study. If the vaccine was safe, effective, and provided freely, 70.2% showed willingness to get the RSV vaccine, 15.2% resisted, and 14.6% were hesitant. Principal component analysis identified six internally consistent sub-scales with the following suggested themes: Advice, Burden, Conspiracy, Dangers, Efficiency, and Fear, comprising 21 items collectively as assigned as the "ABCDEF" scale for RSV vaccine acceptance. RSV vaccine acceptance in this study was associated with the advice and fear constructs. The validated survey instrument successfully captured important determinants of RSV vaccine acceptance among young females. RSV vaccine promotion efforts should focus on the following: enhancing vaccine education, improving trust in healthcare institutions and providers, reducing burdens through resolving cost issues and focusing on the role of social support, addressing safety concerns, and tailoring communication strategies to effectively promote the benefits of the vaccine. These insights can inform public health policies and interventions aiming to promote RSV vaccination and mitigate the burden of RSV-related diseases among infants. Follow-up studies are recommended with pregnant women as the target group to assess their attitude towards RSV vaccination and to confirm the validity of the conceived ABCDEF survey instrument.

Vaccine regulation should require and enforce the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in prelicensure clinical trials

Exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women from the pivotal randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines that led to emergency regulatory approval created gaps in data needed for vaccine policy, healthcare provider recommendations, and women's decisions about vaccination. We argue that such knowledge gaps increase potential for vaccine hesitancy and misinformation relating to the health of women and infants, and that these gaps in evidence are avoidable. Over several decades, ethical and scientific guidance, scholarship, and advocacy in favor of pregnant and breastfeeding women's participation in clinical development of vaccines has accumulated. Guidance on how to include pregnant and breastfeeding women in vaccine trials ethically and safely predates the COVID-19 pandemic but has yet to be routinely incorporated in vaccine development. We highlight the important role regulatory authorities could play in requiring that pregnant and breastfeeding women be eligible as volunteer participants in prelicensure vaccine trials for products that are expected to be used in this population. Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding populations in clinical trials leading to market approval or emergency use authorization should be undertaken early or concurrently at the time of trials in the general population.

A systematic review to determine the anti-vaccination thoughts of pregnant women and the reasons for not getting vaccinated

The aim of this study was to determine the anti-vaccination thoughts of pregnant women and the reasons for not getting vaccinated. In this study, data was obtained by retrospectively scanning the cross-sectional and qualitative studies published in the databases of 'PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost, ULAKBİM and Google Scholar' in Turkish and English languages between 2011-2021. The PRISMA method was used in the preparation of the systematic review. In the studies reviewed, it was determined that the rate of pregnant women who were against the vaccine ranged from 6.2% to 98.6%, and the opinions of pregnant women against vaccination and the reasons for not getting vaccinated are presented under seven themes. The results of the study were considered important in terms of showing that quality and important studies were carried out in the literature on the subject and that the data were presented.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Today, with the global coronavirus pandemic, vaccines and their effects are on the agenda again. Especially in pregnant women, opposition to vaccination and not getting vaccinated have emerged for various reasons.What do the results of this study add? The anti-vaccine thoughts of the pregnant women and the reasons for not getting vaccinated were mostly as follows: insufficient level of knowledge, mistrust of vaccines, perception of low infection risk, misconceptions and beliefs about the safety, content, side effects and efficacy of vaccines, worry and fear about the side effects of vaccines, the thought that the vaccine will harm herself and the baby, causes arising from healthcare professionals, financial, temporal and logistical barriers.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Scientific studies that can provide comprehensive and strong evidence about vaccine hesitancy and its causes, methods of increasing social approval in vaccination, and solutions should be proposed in the light of these researches in the fight against vaccine rejection.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Opinions of Women Planning a Pregnancy: International Web Blogs Scanning

Background

The unprecedented COVID-19 has infected millions of people and killed hundreds of thousands of people. A strategy to contain the spread of the disease was the development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Objective

In our study, it was determined the opinions of women who are planning to become pregnant about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

Blogs were used as the data source in the research, which was designed as a descriptive qualitative study. For this purpose, the expressions of 34 women identified between February and March 2021 were evaluated with directed qualitative content analysis.

Results

Psychological changes, cognitive changes, and coping methods were determined as the themes of our results. This study demonstrates the value of using qualitative methods to determine the thoughts of women planning to become pregnant regarding the COVID-19 vaccine.

Conclusion

For women planning pregnancy, continued research into vaccine safety and efficacy is vital, and results should be carefully investigated and handed in the right channels.

Perception of risk regarding the use of COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant women in Motta town and Hulet Eji Enese district, northwest Ethiopia

Background

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is a common practice in developing countries like Ethiopia. Despite there being a rumor from the community that the use of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is associated with many pregnancy adverse outcomes. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence on the perception of risk COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy in Ethiopia. This study assessed the perception of risk COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and associated factors in Motta town and Hulet Eji Enese district, northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from December 12 to February 12, 2021. A total of 851 women’ were selected using the stratified cluster sampling technique. Data were collected by face-to-face interview using a semi-structured pretested and interviewer-administered questionnaire. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to identify factors associated with the perception of risk COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval at a p-value of ≤ 0.05 was used to declare the level of significance.

Results

Perception of risk COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was 34.2% (95%CI (Confidence Interval): 31–37). Unplanned pregnancy (AOR = 3.66; 95%CI: 2.31–5.81), long travel time to the nearby health care facility (AOR: 4.57; 95% CI: 2.34–8.91), have no formal education (AOR: 3.15; 95%CI: 1.71–5.79), attending secondary educational level (AOR: 5.18; 95% CI: 2.17–12.4), no ANC (Antenatal Care) service utilization (AOR: 7.07; 95% CI: 4.35–11.5) and negative attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination (AOR: 6.05; 95%CI: 3.88–9.43) were significantly associated with the perception of risk COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

Conclusions

Most of the participants perceive COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy as a risk for the outcome of pregnancy. Designing strategies to increase women’s educational status, promoting the need for maternal and child health services, and awareness creation regarding COVID-19 vaccination will have a great role in changing the perception of pregnant women. Therefore, the government should design public health programs targeting the identified factor, and should minimize the perception of risk acquiring infection from COVID-19 vaccine to improve maternal and neonatal health outcome.

Clinical trials in pregnancy and the "shadows of thalidomide": Revisiting the legacy of Frances Kelsey

Despite great need for improved understanding of the use of drugs and biological products in pregnancy, clinical trials in pregnancy are rare, therapeutics in pregnancy are woefully understudied, and pregnant individuals are routinely excluded as trial participants. Recently, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signaled strong support for advancing scientific research with pregnant populations, marking a significant shift from the past. Over the last sixty years, precaution and fear have largely characterized clinical research in pregnancy, deriving in large part from a protectionist ethic that materialized after the thalidomide drug disaster. FDA reviewer Frances Kelsey courageously prevented thalidomide from being marketed in the United States, and her work guided and solidified the FDA's image as protector of the general population from unsafe and ineffective drugs. Yet, when it comes to protection, pregnant persons have been left behind, and experts refer to the "shadows of thalidomide" that hamper clinical trials in pregnancy. Drawing on analysis of Frances Kelsey's archived papers in addition to focused media coverage of Kelsey and thalidomide, we discuss the durable cultural narrative surrounding Kelsey's important work. We argue that revisiting Kelsey's legacy with attention to themes that have characterized her achievement-staying vigilant, prioritizing safety, and mitigating pharmaceutical-based harm-in fact facilitates progress toward the ethical obligation to protect pregnant people through research, toward the generation of pregnancy-specific data for evidence-based care, and toward realizing Kelsey's legacy of safeguarding pregnant people and their offspring from the harms of untested drugs.

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.

Pregnant Individuals' Views on Fetal Tissue Research in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Fetal tissue research has driven significant medical advances but remains publicly contentious in the United States. The views of pregnant individuals in the United States regarding the donation of fetal tissue offer an important and previously unexplored perspective on this issue.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from two separate, broader qualitative studies. Pregnant and recently pregnant individuals (N=79) from clinical sites at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins University, and Massachusetts General Hospital were interviewed individually using a semi-structured guide addressing a range of issues related to infectious disease research and pregnancy, including the acceptability of fetal tissue research. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for emergent themes.

RESULTS

Among this sample of predominantly Black (61%), reproductive-aged pregnant and recently pregnant participants, the majority (72%) generally supported fetal tissue research. The following three themes were identified: choice, respect, and meaning. Respondents discussed the deeply personal nature of decisions surrounding fetal tissue research, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and respect for the person's emotional state when approaching for consent. The ways in which participants regarded how to respectfully handle fetal tissue also shaped views about the acceptability of donation, both for and against. For many participants, fetal tissue donation to research represented one way of ascribing meaning to pregnancy termination or loss.

CONCLUSION

Among this diverse sample of pregnant and recently pregnant individuals, most were supportive of fetal tissue donation for research. A better understanding of pregnant individuals' views on this topic may lead to policies and practices that are congruent with the needs and values of people facing decisions regarding the disposition of fetal remains.

Physician Perspectives on Including Pregnant Women in Covid-19 Clinical Trials: Time for a Paradigm Change

Excluding pregnant people from Covid-19 clinical trials may lead to unintended harmful consequences. For this study, an online questionnaire was sent to physicians belonging to Canadian professional medical associations in order to evaluate their perspectives on the participation of pregnant women in Covid-19 clinical trials. The majority of respondents expressed support for including pregnant women in Covid-19 trials (119/165; 72%), especially those investigating therapies with a prior safety record in pregnancy (139/164; 85%). The main perceived barriers to inclusion identified were unwillingness of pregnant patients to participate and of treating teams to offer participation, the burden of regulatory approval, and a general "culture of exclusion" of pregnant women from trials. We describe why some physicians may be reluctant to include pregnant individuals in trials, and we identify barriers to the appropriate participation of pregnant people in clinical research.

'My primary purpose is to protect the unborn child': Understanding pregnant women's perceptions of maternal vaccination and vaccine trials in Europe

Despite the important benefits of maternal vaccination for pregnant women and newborns, vaccination uptake is low in many European countries. Differences in vaccination policies and recommendations, as well as concerns about vaccine safety can partly explain inadequate coverage rates and women's hesitancy to get vaccinated during pregnancy. This study aims to explore pregnant women's experiences, decision-making processes and perceptions towards maternal vaccination and maternal vaccine trials in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with 258 pregnant women identified through local research panels and snowballing. Topic guides translated in local languages were designed to explore women's awareness and perceptions of maternal vaccination, and willingness to participate in vaccine trials during pregnancy. A thematic analysis was conducted. Pregnant women were found to have low awareness about maternal vaccination, with many reporting not having received a recommendation to vaccinate from their doctors. Strong trust in health professionals indicate that strengthened recommendations could improve vaccination uptake. Vaccination decision-making in pregnancy was described in the context of a highly emotional period, generating anxiety and fears around the safety of vaccines. Pregnancy was also discussed as a period during which women develop nurturing and protective identities. However, depending on the information they received as well as influences from experts, families and peers, women either perceived vaccination as a threat to their babies' safety or as a means to protect them. Attitudes towards maternal vaccine trials were less ambiguous, with most pregnant women strongly rejecting the notion of taking part in trials. While strategies to improve pregnant women's awareness and perceptions of maternal vaccination are needed, it is equally important to understand why healthcare professionals may not be recommending vaccination. More coordinated strategies across Europe could help strengthen communication and trust in maternal vaccination.

Maternal vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic:A qualitative interview study with UK pregnant women

BACKGROUND

There is suboptimal uptake of recommended maternal vaccines (pertussis and influenza) during pregnancy in the UK. The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare services, and potentially vaccine coverage, and brought the need for new vaccines to be tested and rolled out.

OBJECTIVES

To explore: i) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on pregnant women's access to, and attitudes towards, routine maternal vaccines and; ii) women's attitudes towards testing Covid-19 vaccines on pregnant women and their personal willingness to take part in such a trial.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study with pregnant women in the Bristol and surrounding area (UK).

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone/videoconference interviews were conducted (following a topic guide), transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-one pregnant women (selected for demographic range) were interviewed in April/May 2020. Participants felt the pandemic had elevated the importance of routine maternal vaccines, though women were concerned about safety management around appointment attendance. Women were wary of receiving a new Covid-19 vaccine, with most perceiving it as riskier than Covid-19 itself.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to maximise the safety and efficiency of maternity appointments to encourage uptake of routine maternal vaccines, and to communicate this well. For pregnant women to gain a new vaccine or participate in a vaccine trial, they need to be convinced that the risk posed by the virus is greater than any risk of receiving a new vaccine.

The Impact of Epidemiology on Fertility and Prenatal Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The emergence of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presented the field of reproductive medicine with many challenges due to an absence of data to guide clinical decision-making and inform patient counseling and management in the early days of the pandemic. Epidemiological studies rapidly filled key gaps in our understanding of the susceptibility of reproductive-aged women to the virus, transmission dynamics during pregnancy and lactation, and the effect of infection during the prenatal, pregnancy, and postpartum periods. This data guided the development of clinical guidelines written by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine as patients and clinicians navigated reproductive decisions during a time of uncertainty. We present a review of epidemiologic studies published between March and December 2020 that have directly informed prenatal and fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite a significant increase in our knowledge base over the past year, many questions remain about the impact of COVID-19 on conception, pregnancy, fetal development, and lactation. In the future, a commitment toward inclusion of pregnant persons and those attempting pregnancy in the design of observational and interventional trials is necessary to gain earlier insights about outcomes and assist providers and patients in making data-driven decisions.

Appropriateness for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeons in case of pregnancy, breastfeeding, or childbearing potential: Yo-IFOS and CEORL-HNS joint clinical consensus statement

Purpose

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a key step in fighting the pandemic. Nevertheless, their rapid development did not allow for testing among specific population subgroups such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, or elaborating specific guidelines for healthcare personnel working in high infection risk specialties, such as otolaryngology (ORL). This clinical consensus statement (CCS) aims to offer guidance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to this high-risk population based on the best evidence available.

Methods

A multidisciplinary international panel of 33 specialists judged statements through a two-round modified Delphi method survey. Statements were designed to encompass the following topics: risk of SARS-Cov-2 infection and use of protective equipment in ORL; SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines and respective risks for the mother/child dyad; and counseling for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnant, breastfeeding, or fertile healthcare workers (PBFHW). All ORL PBFHW were considered as the target audience.

Results

Of the 13 statements, 7 reached consensus or strong consensus, 2 reached no consensus, and 2 reached near-consensus. According to the statements with strong consensus otorhinolaryngologists—head and neck surgeons who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or with childbearing potential should have the opportunity to receive SARS-Cov-2 vaccination. Moreover, personal protective equipment (PPE) should still be used even after the vaccination.

Conclusion

Until prospective evaluations on these topics are available, ORL-HNS must be considered a high infection risk specialty. While the use of PPE remains pivotal, ORL PBFHW should be allowed access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination provided they receive up-to-date information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00405-021-06794-6.