Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported. CONCLUSION: People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021272287.

Analysis of Firearm Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

Importance: In the US, the COVID-19 pandemic intensified some conditions that may contribute to firearm violence, and a recent surge in firearm sales during the pandemic has been reported. However, patterns of change in firearm violence in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US remain unclear. Objective: To quantify the changes in interpersonal firearm violence associated with the pandemic across all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cross-sectional study examined 50 US states and the District of Columbia from January 1, 2016, to February 28, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic period was defined as between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from April to December 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 2-stage interrupted time-series design was used to examine the excess burden of firearm-related incidents, nonfatal injuries, and deaths associated with the pandemic while accounting for long-term trends and seasonality. In the first stage, separate quasi-Poisson regression models were fit to the daily number of firearm events in each state. In the second stage, estimates were pooled using a multivariate meta-analysis. Results: In the US (all 50 states and the District of Columbia) during the pandemic period of March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, there were 62 485 identified firearm-related incidents, 40 021 firearm-related nonfatal injuries, and 19 818 firearm-related deaths. The pandemic period was associated with 8138 (95% empirical confidence interval [eCI], 2769-12 948) excess incidents (increase of 15.0% [95% eCI, 4.6%-26.1%]), 10 222 (95% eCI, 8284-11 650) excess nonfatal injuries (increase of 34.3% [95% eCI, 26.1%-41.1%]), and 4381 (95% eCI, 2262-6264) excess deaths (increase of 28.4% [95% eCI, 12.9%-46.2%]). The increase in firearm-related violence was more pronounced from June to October 2020 and in Minnesota and New York State. Conclusions and Relevance: In the US, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an excess burden of firearm-related incidents, nonfatal injuries, and deaths, with substantial temporal and spatial variations.