COVID testing hesitancy among pregnant patients: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic about the unique needs and challenges of medically complex populations.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant patients were a significant population to consider during the pandemic, given the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on obstetric outcomes. While COVID testing was a central pillar of infection control, it became apparent that a subset of the population declined to test. At the same time, data emerged about pregnant persons also declining testing. Yet, it was unknown why pregnant patients declined tests and if those reasons were similar or different from those of the general population. We conducted this study to explore pregnant patients' attitudes, access, and utilization of COVID-19 testing to support healthcare for infection prevention management for this unique and medically complex population. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of patients who were currently or recently pregnant during the early stages of the pandemic and received outpatient prenatal care at one of the participating study sites. An interview guide was used to conduct in-depth telephone interviews. Coding was performed using NVivo, and analysis was conducted using Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The average age of the participants (N = 37) was 32 (SD 4.21) years. Most were < 35 years of age (57%) and self-described as White (68%). Qualitative analysis identified themes related to barriers to COVID-19 testing access and use during pregnancy, including concerns about test accuracy, exposure to COVID-19 in testing facilities, isolation and separation during labor and delivery, and diminished healthcare quality and patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of widespread and universal COVID testing policies did not address the unique needs and challenges of pregnant patients as a medically complex population. It is important to understand the reasons and implications for pregnant patients who declined COVID testing during the current pandemic to inform strategies to prevent infection spread in future public health emergencies.

Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care.

OBJECTIVES: Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second-third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (ß -3.889; [CI -7.341, -0.437]; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Virtual prenatal visits associated with high measures of patient experience and satisfaction among average-risk patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual visits have the potential to decrease barriers to prenatal care stemming from transportation, work, and childcare concerns. However, data regarding patient experience and satisfaction with virtual visits remain limited in obstetrics. To address this gap, we explore average-risk pregnant women's experiences with virtual visits and compare satisfaction with virtual vs. in-person visits as a secondary aim. METHODS: In this IRB-approved, prospective cohort study, we surveyed pregnant women after their first virtual visit between October 7, 2019 and March 20, 2020. Using heterogeneous purposive sampling, we identified a subset of respondents with diverse experiences and opinions for interviews. For comparison, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) satisfaction data were collected after in-person visits during the study timeframe from a control cohort with the same prenatal providers. Logistic regression controlling for age, previous pregnancies, and prior live births compared satisfaction data between virtual and in-person visits. Other quantitative survey data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Free text survey responses and interview data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Ninety five percent (n = 165/174) of surveys and 90% (n = 18/20) of interviews were completed. Most participants were Caucasian, married, and of middle to high income. 69% (114/165) agreed that their virtual appointment was as good as in-person; only 13% (21/165) disagreed. Almost all (148/165, 90%) would make another virtual appointment. Qualitative data highlighted ease of access, comparable provider-patient communication, confidence in care quality, and positive remote monitoring experiences. Recognizing these advantages but also inherent limitations, interviews emphasized interspersing telemedicine with in-person prenatal encounters. CAHPS responses after in-person visits were available for 60 patients. Logistic regression revealed no significant difference in three measures of satisfaction (p = 0.16, 0.09, 0.13) between virtual and in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk population, virtual prenatal visits provide a patient-centered alternative to traditional in-person encounters with high measures of patient experience and no significant difference in satisfaction. Obstetric providers should explore telemedicine to improve access - and, during the ongoing pandemic, to minimize exposures - using patients' experiences for guidance. More research is needed regarding virtual visits' medical quality, integration into prenatal schedules, and provision of equitable care for diverse populations.

The impact of the emergence of COVID-19 on women's prenatal genetic testing decisions.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study to examine the impact of COVID on patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 40 patients to examine how the pandemic affected prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing decisions during the initial months of the pandemic in the United States. An interview guide queried experiences with the ability to access information about prenatal genetic testing options and to utilize the tests when desired. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12. Analysis was conducted using Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The pandemic did not alter most participants' decisions to undergo prenatal genetic testing. Yet, it did impact how participants viewed the risks and benefits of testing and timing of testing. There was heightened anxiety among those who underwent testing, stemming from the risk of viral exposure and the fear of being alone if pregnancy loss or fetal abnormality was identified at the time of an ultrasound-based procedure. CONCLUSION: The pandemic may impact patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic tests. More research is needed to determine how best to meet pregnant patients' decision-making needs during this time.

Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

BACKGROUND: Prenatal genetic screens, including carrier screening (CS) and aneuploidy screening (AS), comprise an important component of reproductive healthcare delivery. Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of informed decision-making and patient's preferences regarding the use of these screens. Yet, it is unclear how to achieve this ideal as prenatal genetic screening options rapidly become more complex and increasingly available to patients. With increased complexity and availability of reproductive testing options, decision-support strategies are critical to prepare patients to consider AS and/or CS. METHODS: A self-administered survey evaluated knowledge and decision-making preferences for expanded carrier (CS) and aneuploidy (AS) prenatal screening. The survey was administered to participants before their first prenatal visit to assess baseline decision-making needs and preference at the initiation of prenatal care. Analysis was approached as a descriptive process. RESULTS: Participants had similar familiarity with the concepts associated with AS compared to CS; mean knowledge scores for CS was 0.59 [possible range 0.00 to 1.00] and 0.55 for AS. Participants reported preferences to learn about a range of conditions, including those with severe or mild impact, childhood-onset, and adult-onset. Decision-making preference with respect to learning about the associated disease phenotypes for the contained on AS and CS panel shifted with the complexity of the panel, with a greater preference to learn about conditions post-test compared pre-test education as panels increased from 5 to 100 conditions. CONCLUSION: Patients' baseline knowledge of prenatal genetic screens coupled with evolving decision-making preferences presents challenges for the delivery of prenatal genetic screens. This calls for the development and implementation of innovative approaches to support pregnant patients' decision-making commensurate with advances in prenatal genomics.

Uterus transplantation: state of the art in 2021.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of uterus transplantation in 2021, including a discussion of pregnancy outcomes of all reported births to date, the donor and recipient selection process, the organ procurement and transplant surgeries, reported complications, postoperative monitoring, preimplantation preparation, and ethical considerations. METHODS: Literature review and expert commentary. RESULTS: Reports of thirty-one live births following uterus transplantation have been published from both living and deceased donors. The proper selection of donors and recipients is a labor-intensive process that requires advanced planning. A multidisciplinary team is critical. Reported complications in the recipient include thrombosis, infection, vaginal stricture, antenatal complications, and graft failure. Graft rejection is a common occurrence but rarely leads to graft removal. While most embryo transfers are successful, recurrent implantation failures in uterus transplant patients have been reported. Rates of preterm delivery are high but appear to be declining; more data, including long-term outcome data, is needed. CONCLUSIONS: Uterus transplantation is an emerging therapy for absolute uterine factor infertility, a condition previously without direct treatment options. It is paramount that reproductive health care providers are familiar with the uterus transplantation process as more patients seek and receive this treatment.

Evolving ethical issues with advances in uterus transplantation.

While uterus transplantation was once considered only a theoretical possibility for patients with uterine factor infertility, researchers have now developed methods of transplantation that have led to successful pregnancies with multiple children born to date. Because of the unique and significant nature of this type of research, it has been undertaken with collaboration not only with scientists and physicians but also with bioethicists, who paved the initial path for research of uterus transplantation to take place. As the science of uterus transplantation continues to advance, so too must the public dialogue among obstetrician/gynecologists, transplant surgeons, bioethicists, and other key stakeholders in defining the continued direction of research in addition to planning for the clinical implementation of uterus transplantation as a therapeutic option. Given the rapid advances in this field, the time has come to revisit the fundamental questions raised at the inception of uterus transplantation and, looking forward, determine the future of this approach given emerging data on the procedure's impact on individuals, families, and society.

First birth from a deceased donor uterus in the United States: from severe graft rejection to successful cesarean delivery.

Uterus transplantation is the only known potential treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility. It offers a unique setting for the investigation of immunologic adaptations of pregnancy in the context of the pharmacologic-induced tolerance of solid organ transplants, thus providing valuable insights into the early maternal-fetal interface. Until recently, all live births resulting from uterus transplantation involved living donors, with only 1 prior birth from a deceased donor. The Cleveland Clinic clinical trial of uterus transplantation opened in 2015. In 2017, a 35 year old woman with congenital absence of the uterus was matched to a 24 year old parous deceased brain-dead donor. Transplantation of the uterus was performed with vaginal anastomosis and vascular anastomoses bilaterally from internal iliac vessels of the donor to the external iliac vessels of the recipient. Induction and maintenance immunosuppression were achieved and subsequently modified in anticipation of pregnancy 6 months after transplant. Prior to planned embryo transfer, ectocervical biopsy revealed ulceration and a significant diffuse, plasma cell-rich mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate, with histology interpreted as grade 3 rejection suspicious for an antibody-mediated component. Aggressive immunosuppressive regimen targeting both cellular and humoral rejection was initiated. After 3 months of treatment, there was no histologic evidence of rejection, and after 3 months from complete clearance of rejection, an uneventful embryo transfer was performed and a pregnancy was established. At 21 weeks, central placenta previa with accreta was diagnosed. A healthy neonate was delivered by cesarean hysterectomy at 34 weeks' gestation. In summary, this paper highlights the first live birth in North America resulting from a deceased donor uterus transplant. This achievement underscores the capacity of the transplanted uterus to recover from a severe, prolonged rejection and yet produce a viable neonate. This is the first delivery from our ongoing clinical trial in uterus transplantation, including the first reported incidence of severe mixed cellular/humoral rejection as well as the first reported placenta accreta.

Making the most of the first prenatal visit: The challenge of expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limited clinical encounter time.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests.

The personal utility of cfDNA screening: Pregnant patients' experiences with cfDNA screening and views on expanded cfDNA panels.

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) provides more genetic risk information about the fetus than has ever been possible. At the same time, the rapid expansion of new cfDNA panels raises important questions about how to structure patient-centered discussions that best support patients' decision-making about its use. To address this question, we conducted interviews with pregnant patients to identify decision-making needs and preferences with respect to cfDNA in patient-centered healthcare discussions, given its evolving capability to identify a range of fetal variants. Personal utility was a core concept guiding decision-making. Participants spoke of how their deeply personal values and beliefs about maternal responsibility, actionability, and tolerance of uncertainty framed their view of the personal utility of cfDNA screening. While discussing their notions of personal utility with their healthcare provider, participants also had concerns about potential ramifications for the provider-patient relationship and shared decision-making when disclosing values and preferences regarding disability, quality of life, and termination-particularly as it becomes possible to identify variants with different disease-associated severity and outcomes. The complexities associated with the introduction of genomics in prenatal care present unique challenges to structuring effective shared decision-making discussions between patients and their healthcare providers. While efforts are underway to determine how to best educate patients about the medical aspects of cfDNA, it is equally important to develop approaches in healthcare communication that enable patients to make informed, values-based decisions about the use of cfDNA and its impact on their pregnancy.

Balancing Needs and Autonomy: The Involvement of Pregnant Women's Partners in Decisions About cfDNA.

Cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening is used to identify the presence of fetal genetic variants early in pregnancy. Patients' informed decision-making is central to the success of this new screen in clinical practice. Although research has focused on pregnant women's decision-making, little is known about partners' role and preferences as a member of the decision-making dyad. Using a grounded theory approach, this study analyzed 23 in-depth interviews to examine partners' perspectives about cfDNA screening and preferences with respect to their role in the decision-making process. Participants wished to be actively involved in testing decisions. They articulated a distinct set of needs and preferences in the decision-making process. Such involvement was hindered by several biological and logistical barriers. This study demonstrates the need to develop mechanisms that foster informed decision-making for cfDNA screening and related new reproductive genetic technologies that focus on not just the pregnant woman but also the decision-making dyad that includes her partner as well.

Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians.

The expansion of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) screening for a larger and diverse set of genetic variants, in addition for use among the low-risk obstetric population, presents important clinical challenges for all healthcare providers involved in the delivery of prenatal care. It is unclear how to leverage the different members of the healthcare team to respond to these challenges. We conducted interviews with 25 prenatal genetic counselors to understand their experience with the continued expansion of cfDNA screening. Participants supported the use of cfDNA screening for the common autosomal aneuploidies, but noted some reservations for its use to identify fetal sex and microdeletions. Participants reported several barriers to ensuring that patients have the information and support to make informed decisions about using cfDNA to screen for these different conditions. This was seen as a dual-sided problem, and necessitated additional education interventions that addressed patients seeking cfDNA screening, and obstetricians who introduce the concepts of genetic risk and cfDNA to patients. In addition, participants noted that they have a professional responsibility to educate obstetricians about cfDNA so they can be prepared to be gatekeepers of counseling and education about this screening option for use among the general obstetric population.

Periviable birth: Interim update.

Approximately 0.5% of all births occur before the third trimester of pregnancy, and these very early deliveries result in the majority of neonatal deaths and more than 40% of infant deaths. A recent executive summary of proceedings from a joint workshop defined periviable birth as delivery occurring from 20 0/7 weeks to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation. When delivery is anticipated near the limit of viability, families and health care teams are faced with complex and ethically challenging decisions. Multiple factors have been found to be associated with short-term and long-term outcomes of periviable births in addition to gestational age at birth. These include, but are not limited to, nonmodifiable factors (eg, fetal sex, weight, plurality), potentially modifiable antepartum and intrapartum factors (eg, location of delivery, intent to intervene by cesarean delivery or induction for delivery, administration of antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate), and postnatal management (eg, starting or withholding and continuing or withdrawing intensive care after birth). Antepartum and intrapartum management options vary depending upon the specific circumstances but may include short-term tocolytic therapy for preterm labor to allow time for administration of antenatal steroids, antibiotics to prolong latency after preterm premature rupture of membranes or for intrapartum group B streptococci prophylaxis, and delivery, including cesarean delivery, for concern regarding fetal well-being or fetal malpresentation. Whenever possible, periviable births for which maternal or neonatal intervention is planned should occur in centers that offer expertise in maternal and neonatal care and the needed infrastructure, including intensive care units, to support such services. This document describes newborn outcomes after periviable birth, provides current evidence and recommendations regarding interventions in this setting, and provides an outline for family counseling with the goal of incorporating informed patient preferences. Its intent is to provide support and guidance regarding decisions, including declining and accepting interventions and therapies, based on individual circumstances and patient values.

The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify how physicians develop their knowledge base and practice patterns regarding noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). METHODS: A survey was used to assess physicians' informational sources and practice patterns regarding NIPT. RESULTS: While most of the 258 participants acquire knowledge about NIPT from the medical literature or didactic educational programming, 74 (28.7%) cite commercial laboratories as an initial source and 124 (47.8%) as a way to keep current with changes in NIPT. About one-third (n = 94, 36.4%) seek information about ethical issues related to NIPT. Half of the OB/GYN respondents (n = 136, 52.7%) provide pretest counseling; fewer refer to a genetic counselor or maternal fetal medicine specialist (MFM) (n = 94, 34.6%, n = 29, 11.2%, respectively). Pretest counseling content and the comfort with which participants discuss topics pertinent to patients' utilization of NIPT varied between OB/GYNs and MFMs. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in cff DNA technology emphasize the need for effective strategies for physicians to develop competency and practice patterns regarding NIPT. Study findings speak to the need for effective educational resources for obstetric providers, not just early adopters of NIPT but also for primary OB/GYNs as they serve in the role of the first point of contact for women considering their prenatal testing options. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

#3: Periviable birth.

Approximately 0.5% of all births occur before the third trimester of pregnancy, and these very early deliveries result in the majority of neonatal deaths and more than 40% of infant deaths. A recent executive summary of proceedings from a joint workshop defined periviable birth as delivery occurring from 20 0/7 weeks to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation. When delivery is anticipated near the limit of viability, families and health care teams are faced with complex and ethically challenging decisions. Multiple factors have been found to be associated with short-term and long-term outcomes of periviable births in addition to gestational age at birth. These include, but are not limited to, nonmodifiable factors (eg, fetal sex, weight, plurality), potentially modifiable antepartum and intrapartum factors (eg, location of delivery, intent to intervene by cesarean delivery or induction for delivery, administration of antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate), and postnatal management (eg, starting or withholding and continuing or withdrawing intensive care after birth). Antepartum and intrapartum management options vary depending upon the specific circumstances but may include short-term tocolytic therapy for preterm labor to allow time for administration of antenatal steroids, antibiotics to prolong latency after preterm premature rupture of membranes or for intrapartum group B streptococci prophylaxis, and delivery, including cesarean delivery, for concern regarding fetal well-being or fetal malpresentation. Whenever possible, periviable births for which maternal or neonatal intervention is planned should occur in centers that offer expertise in maternal and neonatal care and the needed infrastructure, including intensive care units, to support such services. This document describes newborn outcomes after periviable birth, provides current evidence and recommendations regarding interventions in this setting, and provides an outline for family counseling with the goal of incorporating informed patient preferences. Its intent is to provide support and guidance regarding decisions, including declining and accepting interventions and therapies, based on individual circumstances and patient values.