"First was to sit down and bring our minds together". A qualitative study on safer conception decision-making among HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe.

Decision-making on childbearing and safer conception use in HIV sero-different couples involves an intricate balance of individual desires and perceived HIV acquisition risk. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding HIV sero-different couples' considerations and the relationship and power dynamics involved when deciding to use a safer conception method. Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples, who exited the SAFER study - a pilot study assessing the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a safer conception programme for HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe. All couples in SAFER were provided with a choice of safer conception methods and were followed for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts and 3 months following pregnancy. While couples generally perceived their safer conception discussions to be easy and consensus-driven, the decision-making process also involved complex gender dynamics and trade-offs in relationship power, which resulted in differing interpretations of what constituted a joint or shared couple decision. Participants regarded effective couple communication as an essential component of and precursor to good safer conception conversations and requested additional training in couple communication. Couples relied on information from healthcare providers to kickstart their safer conception discussions. Safer conception programmes should address relationship power imbalances, promote effective couple communication and offer healthcare provider support to enable HIV sero-different couples to make informed choices about conception in a manner that upholds their safety and reproductive autonomy.

Our study explored how HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe made decisions on the use of safer conception methods. We interviewed 14 men and 17 women who participated in the SAFER study ­ a pilot study looking at how feasible, acceptable and cost-effective a safer conception programme for HIV sero-different couples is in Zimbabwe. We sought to understand the relationship dynamics, considerations and power trade-offs involved in choosing a safer conception method. Couples reported that their conversations about safer conception were easy and agreeable. At the same time, we found that both gender norms and HIV status shaped the couples' decision-making process, with male gender and partners with an HIV-negative status often having more influence in the final decision of which method to use. Effective couple communication was deemed crucial to support safer conception conversations, with participants requesting additional training in this area. The findings emphasise the importance of providing safer conception methods in a context that addresses power disparities, fosters good communication and includes healthcare providers' support to uphold HIV sero-different couples' reproductive rights and help them achieve their reproductive goals.

"We chose PrEP because I wanted to be sure that this child my wife was going to conceive was indeed mine." Factors influencing the choice of safer conception methods and experiences with its use: a qualitative study among HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-discordant couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when they are offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding factors that influence the choice of safer conception methods, couples' actual experiences using safer conception methods, and why some couples switch safer conception methods. METHODS: Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples who exited the SAFER study-a pilot safer conception study for HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe that offered couples a choice of ART with monthly viral load monitoring (ART/VL), oral PrEP, vaginal insemination, and semen washing. All couples in SAFER had used at least two safer conception methods. RESULTS: We found that safer conception method choice often centered around a desire for intimacy, condomless sex, and certainty in the conception process, particularly for men. Method-related attributes such as familiarity, perceived ease of use, side effects, and perceived level of effectiveness in preventing HIV and achieving pregnancy influenced method choice, switching, and satisfaction. Concerns were expressed about each safer conception method and couples were willing to try different methods until they found method(s) that worked for them. The majority of participants reported having positive experiences using safer conception, especially those using ART/VL + PrEP, citing that they were able to attempt pregnancy for the first time with peace of mind and experienced joy and satisfaction from being able to achieve pregnancy safely. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in method preferences and experiences voiced by participants in this study and in other studies from the region point to the importance of having a variety of safer conception options in the service delivery package and addressing concerns about paternity, intimacy, and method-related attributes to enable HIV sero-discordant couples to safely achieve their reproductive goals.

Who's in the NICU? A population-level analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the characteristics of infants admitted to US NICUs. STUDY DESIGN: 2006-2014 linked birth certificate and hospital discharge data for potentially viable deliveries in Pennsylvania and South Carolina were used. NICU admissions were identified using revenue codes. NICU-admitted infants were categorized by gestational age (GA), birthweight, and condition severity (for GA 35+ weeks). We also assessed total patient days and trends over time. RESULTS: 12% of infants were admitted to a NICU; 13.6% were GA < 32 weeks (45.3% of total days); 36.1% were GA 32-36 weeks (31.2% of total days); and 50.4% were GA 37+ weeks (23.5% of total days). 20% of admissions were for infants with GA 35+ weeks and mild conditions. Admissions increased numerically from 11.2% (2006) to 13.0% (2014), with increases among infants 35+ weeks. CONCLUSION: Most NICU admissions are for infants 35+ weeks GA, many with mild conditions who may be accommodated in well-baby units.