Pregnant individuals perspectives towards receiving COVID-19 vaccination during their pregnancy: an in-depth qualitative study.

Introduction: Pregnant individuals have an increased risk of severe illness from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Vaccination is an effective strategy to prevent severe illness and complications for pregnant individuals. Pregnant individuals are often excluded from research and remain hesitant to receive vaccination against COVID-19. It is pivotal to study factors related to vaccine uptake and hesitancy among pregnant individuals. We studied barriers and facilitators for pregnant individuals choice and motivation regarding vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy to aid future pregnant individuals in their decision to vaccinate against various infectious agents. Methods: In this qualitative study, pregnant individuals were interviewed between October 2021 and January 2022 using a semi-structured approach. A topic list was used to explore their feelings, perceptions and ideas regarding vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analyses was performed using MAX QDA. Results: After nine interviews, saturation was reached. Three main themes were identified that influenced pregnant individuals choice and motivation regarding vaccination: health consequences, ambiguity of information and societal motivation. Health consequences mainly concerned the effect for their offspring, and the unknown long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination. The advice from the Dutch institute for Public Health and Environment changed from not vaccinating pregnant individuals after release of the developed vaccine, to routinely vaccinating all pregnant individuals after research data were available from the United States of America (USA). This change of policy fuelled doubt and confusion for vaccination. Arguments in favor of vaccination from the social perspective were specific behaviour rules and restrictions due to the pandemic. E.g. without vaccination people were unable to travel abroad and having to take a COVID-19 test every time entering a public place. Conclusion: Pregnant individuals need clear, unambiguous information concerning health consequences, short- and long-term, particularly for their offspring, in the decision-making process regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, the societal perspective needs to be addressed. Besides the aforementioned themes, general counselling should focus on misperceptions of vaccine safety and the role of misinformation which are also important in the non-pregnant population. This study underlines the importance of including pregnant individuals in research programs to obtain specific information targeted to their needs.

Vaccination from the early second trimester onwards gives a robust SARS-CoV-2 antibody response throughout pregnancy and provides antibodies for the neonate.

OBJECTIVES: Preventive measures against COVID-19 are essential for pregnant women. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to emerging infectious pathogens due to alterations in their physiology. We aimed to determine the optimum timing of vaccination to protect pregnant women and their neonates from COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective observational longitudinal cohort study in pregnant women who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected blood samples to evaluate levels of antispike, receptor binding domain and nucleocapsid antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 before vaccination and 15 days after the first and second vaccination. We determined the neutralizing antibodies from mother-infant dyads in maternal and umbilical cord blood at birth. If available, immunoglobulin A was measured in human milk. RESULTS: We included 178 pregnant women. Median antispike immunoglobulin G levels increased significantly from 1.8 to 5431 binding antibody units/ml and receptor binding domain from 6 to 4466 binding antibody units/ml. Virus neutralization showed similar results between different weeks of gestation at vaccination (P >0.3). CONCLUSION: We advise vaccination in the early second trimester of pregnancy for the optimum balance between the maternal antibody response and placental antibody transfer to the neonate.

Fear of childbirth in pregnancy was not increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Fear of childbirth is a well-known problem during pregnancy and can have implications for childbirth, including prolonged labor, use of epidural analgesia, obstetric complications, presence of traumatic stress symptoms, or request for an elective cesarean section. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected mental health and therefore could have increased fear of childbirth during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate fear of childbirth during the pandemic in the Netherlands compared with a reference group from before the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate pregnant women during the first and second waves of COVID-19 compared with both each other and with pregnant women from before the pandemic. Participants were recruited through social media platforms, hospitals, and midwifery practices. Pregnant women aged ≥18 years who had mastered the Dutch language were eligible to participate. Fear of childbirth was measured with the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire online using a cut-off score of ≥85 to indicate clinically relevant fear of childbirth. The primary outcome was the prevalence of fear of childbirth. We undertook additional analyses to specifically look at possible effect modification. RESULTS: In total, 1102 pregnant women completed the questionnaire during the first wave of the pandemic, 731 during the second wave, and 364 before the pandemic. Fear of childbirth was present in 10.6%, 11.4%, and 18.4%, respectively. We considered possible effect modification, which indicated that age and parity had a significant influence. In participants during the first wave of COVID-19, nulliparous women had significantly lower odds (odds ratio [OR] 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.73; p < 0.01) of having a fear of childbirth than did the reference group. Both younger participants in the first wave (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37-0.93; p < 0.05) and older participants in the first wave (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.71; p < 0.01) and the second wave (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.62; p < 0.01) of COVID-19 had lower odds of fear of childbirth than the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women during the first and second waves of COVID-19 had lower fear of childbirth scores than pregnant women before the pandemic, indicating less fear of childbirth during the pandemic. This could be explained by an increased level of information, more time to consume information, and better work-life balance with more people working at home during the pandemic.

Fertility-Sparing Surgery in Gynecologic Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) is increasingly being offered to women with a gynecological malignancy who wish to preserve fertility. In this systematic review, we evaluate the best evidence currently available on oncological and reproductive outcome after FSS for early stage cervical cancer, epithelial ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer. An extensive literature search was conducted using the electronic databases Medline (OVID), Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies published up to December 2020. In total, 153 studies were included with 7544, 3944, and 1229 patients who underwent FSS for cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer, respectively. We assessed the different FSS techniques that are available to preserve fertility, i.e., omitting removal of the uterine body and preserving at least one ovary. Overall, recurrence rates after FSS are reassuring and therefore, these conservative procedures seem oncologically safe in the current selection of patients with low-stage and low-grade disease. However, generalized conclusions should be made with caution due to the methodology of available studies, i.e., mostly retrospective cohort studies with a heterogeneous patient population, inducing selection bias. Moreover, about half of patients do not pursue pregnancy despite FSS and the reasons for these decisions have not yet been well studied. International collaboration will facilitate the collection of solid evidence on FSS and the related decision-making process to optimize patient selection and counseling.