1
|
Hough A, Zamora J, Thangaratinam S, Allotey J. Prioritisation of early pregnancy risk factors for stillbirth: An international multistakeholder modified e-Delphi consensus study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2024; 302:201-205. [PMID: 39298830 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.09.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2024] [Revised: 09/02/2024] [Accepted: 09/12/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify and prioritise early pregnancy risk factors for stillbirth to inform prognostic factor and model research. STUDY DESIGN We used a modified e-Delphi method and consultation meeting to achieve consensus. Risk factors for early, late and stillbirth at any gestation identified from an umbrella review of risk factors for stillbirth were entered into a two-stage online Delphi survey with an international group of stakeholders made up of healthcare professionals and researchers. The RAND/ University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method was used to evaluate consensus. Responders voted on a scale of 1-9 for each risk factor in terms of importance for early, late, and stillbirth at any gestation. Consensus for inclusion was reached if the median score was in the top tertile and at least two thirds of panellists had scored the risk factor within the top tertile. RESULTS Twenty-six risk factors were identified from an umbrella review and presented to stakeholders in round 1 of our e-Delphi survey. Round 1 was completed by 68 stakeholders, 79% (54/68) of whom went on to complete the second round. Seventeen risk factors were discussed at the consensus meeting. From the twenty-six risk factors identified, fifteen of these were prioritised for stillbirth at any gestation, eleven for early stillbirth, and sixteen for late stillbirth, across three domains of maternal characteristics, ultrasound markers and biochemical markers. The prioritised maternal characteristics common to early, late, and stillbirth at any gestation were: maternal age, smoking, drug misuse, history of heritable thrombophilia, hypertension, renal disease, diabetes, previous stillbirth and multiple pregnancy. Maternal BMI, access to healthcare, and socioeconomic status were prioritised for late stillbirth and stillbirth at any gestation. Previous pre-eclampsia and previous small for gestational age baby were prioritised for late stillbirth. Of the ultrasound markers, uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index and congenital fetal anomaly were prioritised for all. One biochemical marker, placental growth factor, was prioritised for stillbirth at any gestation. CONCLUSIONS Our prioritised risk factors for stillbirth can inform formal factor-outcome evaluation of early pregnancy risk factors to influence public health strategies on prevention of such risk factors to prevent stillbirth.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Hough
- Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
| | - Javier Zamora
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Shakila Thangaratinam
- Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK; Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, UK
| | - John Allotey
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, UK; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Centre (BRC), University Hospitals Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Magee LA, Brown JR, Bowyer V, Horgan G, Boulding H, Khalil A, Cheetham NJ, Harvey NR, Mistry HD, Sudre C, Silverio SA, von Dadelszen P, Duncan EL. Courage in Decision Making: A Mixed-Methods Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in Women of Reproductive Age in the U.K. Vaccines (Basel) 2024; 12:440. [PMID: 38675822 PMCID: PMC11055058 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12040440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2024] [Revised: 04/03/2024] [Accepted: 04/13/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccination rates are lower in women of reproductive age (WRA), including pregnant/postpartum women, despite their poorer COVID-19-related outcomes. We evaluated the vaccination experiences of 3568 U.K. WRA, including 1983 women (55.6%) experiencing a pandemic pregnancy, recruited through the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app. Two staggered online questionnaires (Oct-Dec 2021: 3453 responders; Aug-Sept 2022: 2129 responders) assessed reproductive status, COVID-19 status, vaccination, and attitudes for/against vaccination. Descriptive analyses included vaccination type(s), timing relative to age-based eligibility and reproductive status, vaccination delay (first vaccination >28 days from eligibility), and rationale, with content analysis of free-text comments. Most responders (3392/3453, 98.2%) were vaccinated by Dec 2021, motivated by altruism, vaccination supportiveness in general, low risk, and COVID-19 concerns. Few declined vaccination (by Sept/2022: 20/2129, 1.0%), citing risks (pregnancy-specific and longer-term), pre-existing immunity, and personal/philosophical reasons. Few women delayed vaccination, although pregnant/postpartum women (vs. other WRA) received vaccination later (median 3 vs. 0 days after eligibility, p < 0.0001). Despite high uptake, concerns included adverse effects, misinformation (including from healthcare providers), ever-changing government advice, and complex decision making. In summary, most women in this large WRA cohort were promptly vaccinated, including pregnant/post-partum women. Altruism and community benefit superseded personal benefit as reasons for vaccination. Nevertheless, responders experienced angst and received vaccine-related misinformation and discouragement. These findings should inform vaccination strategies in WRA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura A. Magee
- School of Life Course & Population Science, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; (G.H.); (H.D.M.); (S.A.S.); (P.v.D.)
| | - Julia R. Brown
- Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (J.R.B.); (V.B.); (N.J.C.); (E.L.D.)
| | - Vicky Bowyer
- Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (J.R.B.); (V.B.); (N.J.C.); (E.L.D.)
| | - Gillian Horgan
- School of Life Course & Population Science, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; (G.H.); (H.D.M.); (S.A.S.); (P.v.D.)
| | - Harriet Boulding
- The Policy Institute, King’s College London, London WC2B 6LE, UK;
| | - Asma Khalil
- Department of Obstetrics and Maternal Fetal Medicine, St. George’s University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK;
| | - Nathan J. Cheetham
- Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (J.R.B.); (V.B.); (N.J.C.); (E.L.D.)
| | - Nicholas R. Harvey
- Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (J.R.B.); (V.B.); (N.J.C.); (E.L.D.)
| | | | | | - Hiten D. Mistry
- School of Life Course & Population Science, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; (G.H.); (H.D.M.); (S.A.S.); (P.v.D.)
| | - Carole Sudre
- Centre for Medical Image Computer, Department of Computer Science, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Sergio A. Silverio
- School of Life Course & Population Science, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; (G.H.); (H.D.M.); (S.A.S.); (P.v.D.)
- School of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 5AH, UK
| | - Peter von Dadelszen
- School of Life Course & Population Science, King’s College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; (G.H.); (H.D.M.); (S.A.S.); (P.v.D.)
| | - Emma L. Duncan
- Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King’s College London, London SE1 7EH, UK; (J.R.B.); (V.B.); (N.J.C.); (E.L.D.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Langham J, Gurol-Urganci I, Muller P, Webster K, Tassie E, Heslin M, Byford S, Khalil A, Harris T, Sharp H, Pasupathy D, van der Meulen J, Howard LM, O'Mahen HA. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with and without a history of specialist mental health care: a national population-based cohort study using linked routinely collected data in England. Lancet Psychiatry 2023; 10:748-759. [PMID: 37591294 DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(23)00200-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2023] [Revised: 05/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pregnant women with pre-existing mental illnesses have increased risks of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with pregnant women without pre-existing mental illnesses. We aimed to estimate these differences in risks according to the highest level of pre-pregnancy specialist mental health care, defined as psychiatric hospital admission, crisis resolution team (CRT) contact, or specialist community care only, and the timing of the most recent care episode in the 7 years before pregnancy. METHODS Hospital and birth registration records of women with singleton births between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018 in England were linked to records of babies and records from specialist mental health services provided by the England National Health Service, a publicly funded health-care system. We compared the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including fetal and neonatal death, preterm birth, and babies being born small for gestational age (SGA; birthweight <10th percentile), and composite indicators for neonatal adverse outcomes and maternal morbidity, between women with and without a history of contact with specialist mental health care. We calculated odds ratios adjusted for maternal characteristics (aORs), using logistic regression. FINDINGS Of 2 081 043 included women (mean age 30·0 years; range 18-55 years; 77·7% White, 11·4% South Asian, 4·7% Black, and 6·2% mixed or other ethnic background), 151 770 (7·3%) had at least one pre-pregnancy specialist mental health-care contact. 7247 (0·3%) had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital, 29 770 (1·4%) had CRT contact, and 114 753 (5·5%) had community care only. With a pre-pregnancy mental health-care contact, risk of stillbirth or neonatal death within 7 days of birth was not significantly increased (0·45-0·49%; aOR 1·11, 95% CI 0·99-1·24): risk of preterm birth (<37 weeks) increased (6·5-9·8%; aOR 1·53, 1·35-1·73), as did risk of SGA (6·2- 7·5%; aOR 1·34, 1·30-1·37) and neonatal adverse outcomes (6·4-8·4%; aOR 1·37, 1·21-1·55). With a pre-pregnancy mental health-care contact, risk of maternal morbidity increased slightly from 0·9% to 1·0% (aOR 1·18, 1·12-1·25). Overall, risks were highest for women who had a psychiatric hospital admission any time or a mental health-care contact in the year before pregnancy. INTERPRETATION Information about the level and timing of pre-pregnancy specialist mental health-care contacts helps to identify women at increased risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. These women are most likely to benefit from dedicated community perinatal mental health teams working closely with maternity services to provide integrated care. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Langham
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Ipek Gurol-Urganci
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Patrick Muller
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Kirstin Webster
- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Emma Tassie
- King's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Margaret Heslin
- King's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Byford
- King's Health Economics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Asma Khalil
- Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St George's University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Vascular Biology Research Centre, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK
| | - Tina Harris
- Centre for Reproduction Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
| | - Helen Sharp
- Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Dharmintra Pasupathy
- Department of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK; Reproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jan van der Meulen
- Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.
| | - Louise M Howard
- Section of Women's Mental Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Stock SJ, Moore E, Calvert C, Carruthers J, Denny C, Donaghy J, Hillman S, Hopcroft LEM, Hopkins L, Goulding A, Lindsay L, McLaughlin T, Taylor B, Auyeung B, Katikireddi SV, McCowan C, Ritchie LD, Rudan I, Simpson CR, Robertson C, Sheikh A, Wood R. Pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in periods dominated by delta and omicron variants in Scotland: a population-based cohort study. THE LANCET. RESPIRATORY MEDICINE 2022; 10:1129-1136. [PMID: 36216011 PMCID: PMC9708088 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00360-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1·1.529) is associated with lower risks of adverse outcomes than the delta (B.1.617.2) variant among the general population. However, little is known about outcomes after omicron infection in pregnancy. We aimed to assess and compare short-term pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron infection in pregnancy. METHODS We did a national population-based cohort study of women who had SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy between May 17, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. The primary maternal outcome was admission to critical care within 21 days of infection or death within 28 days of date of infection. Pregnancy outcomes were preterm birth and stillbirth within 28 days of infection. Neonatal outcomes were death within 28 days of birth, and low Apgar score (<7 of 10, for babies born at term) or neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection in births occurring within 28 days of maternal infection. We used periods when variants were dominant in the general Scottish population, based on 50% or more of cases being S-gene positive (delta variant, from May 17 to Dec 14, 2021) or S-gene negative (omicron variant, from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) as surrogates for variant infections. Analyses used logistic regression, adjusting for maternal age, deprivation quintile, ethnicity, weeks of gestation, and vaccination status. Sensitivity analyses included restricting the analysis to those with first confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and using periods when delta or omicron had 90% or more predominance. FINDINGS Between May 17, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022, there were 9923 SARS-CoV-2 infections in 9823 pregnancies, in 9817 women in Scotland. Compared with infections in the delta-dominant period, SARS-CoV-2 infections in pregnancy in the omicron-dominant period were associated with lower maternal critical care admission risk (0·3% [13 of 4968] vs 1·8% [89 of 4955]; adjusted odds ratio 0·25, 95% CI 0·14-0·44) and lower preterm birth within 28 days of infection (1·8% [37 of 2048] vs 4·2% [98 of 2338]; 0·57, 95% CI 0·38-0·87). There were no maternal deaths within 28 days of infection. Estimates of low Apgar scores were imprecise due to low numbers (5 [1·2%] of 423 with omicron vs 11 [2·1%] of 528 with delta, adjusted odds ratio 0·72, 0·23-2·32). There were fewer stillbirths in the omicron-dominant period than in the delta-dominant period (4·3 [2 of 462] per 1000 births vs 20·3 [13 of 639] per 1000) and no neonatal deaths during the omicron-dominant period (0 [0 of 460] per 1000 births vs 6·3 [4 of 626] per 1000 births), thus numbers were too small to support adjusted analyses. Rates of neonatal infection were low in births within 28 days of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 11 cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 in the delta-dominant period, and 1 case in the omicron-dominant period. Of the 15 stillbirths, 12 occurred in women who had not received two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccination at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. All 12 cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in women who had not received two or more doses of vaccine at the time of maternal infection. Findings in sensitivity analyses were similar to those in the main analyses. INTERPRETATION Pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 were substantially less likely to have a preterm birth or maternal critical care admission during the omicron-dominant period than during the delta-dominant period. FUNDING Wellcome Trust, Tommy's charity, Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Health Data Research UK, National Core Studies-Data and Connectivity, Public Health Scotland, Scottish Government Health and Social Care, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, National Research Scotland.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah J Stock
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
| | | | - Clara Calvert
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Sam Hillman
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
| | - Lisa E M Hopcroft
- Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; Bennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Bonnie Auyeung
- Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
| | - Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
- Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Colin McCowan
- School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
| | | | - Igor Rudan
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
| | - Colin R Simpson
- Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; School of Health, Wellington Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Chris Robertson
- Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Aziz Sheikh
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
| | - Rachael Wood
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Österberg M, Hellberg C, Jonsson AK, Fundell S, Trönnberg F, Skalkidou A, Jonsson M. Core Outcome Sets (COS) related to pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021; 21:691. [PMID: 34627170 PMCID: PMC8501579 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-04164-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic reviews often conclude low confidence in the results due to heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for a specific area of health. The outcomes included in a COS are to be measured and summarized in clinical trials as well as systematic reviews to counteract this heterogeneity. AIM The aim is to identify, compile and assess final and ongoing studies that are prioritizing outcomes in the area of pregnancy and childbirth. METHODS All studies which prioritized outcomes related to pregnancy and childbirth using consensus method, including Delphi surveys or consensus meetings were included. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, SocINDEX and COMET databases up to June 2021. For all studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, information regarding outcomes as well as population, method, and setting was extracted. In addition, reporting in the finalized studies was assessed using a modified version of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting. RESULTS In total, 27 finalized studies and 42 ongoing studies were assessed as relevant and were included. In the finalized studies, the number of outcomes included in the COS ranged from 6 to 51 with a median of 13 outcomes. The majority of the identified COS, both finalized as well as ongoing, were relating to physical complications during pregnancy. CONCLUSION There is a growing number of Core Outcome Set studies related to pregnancy and childbirth. Although several of the finalized studies follow the proposed reporting, there are still some items that are not always clearly reported. Additionally, several of the identified COS contained a large number (n > 20) outcomes, something that possibly could hinder implementation. Therefore, there is a need to consider the number of outcomes which may be included in a COS to render it optimal for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Österberg
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Christel Hellberg
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ann Kristine Jonsson
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Sara Fundell
- Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Alkistis Skalkidou
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Maria Jonsson
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|