Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand ; 102(6): 681-689, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2275097

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy is a risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We aimed to explore maternal characteristics, pregnancy outcomes, vaccination status, and virus variants among pregnant women admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with severe COVID-19. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified pregnant women admitted to ICU in Sweden (n = 96), Norway (n = 31), and Denmark (n = 16) because of severe COVID-19, from national registers and clinical databases between March 2020 and February 2022 (Denmark), August 2022 (Sweden), or December 2022 (Norway). Their background characteristics, pregnancy outcome, and vaccination status were compared with all birthing women and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test-positive pregnant women during the same time period. We calculated the number admitted to ICU per 10 000 birthing and per 1000 SARS-CoV-2 test-positive women during the Index, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron periods. RESULTS: Women admitted to ICU had a higher mean body mass index, were more often of non-Scandinavian origin, had on average lower education and income levels, had a higher proportion of chronic and pregnancy-related conditions, delivered preterm, had neonates with low Apgar scores, and had more infants admitted to neonatal care, compared with all birthing and test-positive pregnant women. Of those admitted to ICU, only 7% had been vaccinated before admission. Overall, the highest proportion of women admitted to ICU per birthing was during the Delta period (4.1 per 10 000 birthing women). In Norway, the highest proportion admitted to ICU per test-positive pregnant women was during the Delta period (17.8 per 1000 test-positive), whereas the highest proportion of admitted per test-positive in Sweden and Denmark was seen during the Index period (15.4 and 8.9 per 1000 test-positive, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Admission to ICU because of COVID-19 in pregnancy was a rare event in the Scandinavian countries, but women who were unvaccinated, of non-Scandinavian origin, and with lower socio-economic status were at higher risk of admission to ICU. In addition, women admitted to ICU for COVID-19 had higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Sweden/epidemiology , Pregnancy Outcome/epidemiology , Norway , Denmark/epidemiology
2.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 8355, 2022 05 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931475

ABSTRACT

The objectives of the current study were to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 positivity, and to address how different testing strategies, choice of comparison group, and population background characteristics may influence observed associations. National registries data for 107,627 pregnant women in Sweden and 81,195 in Norway, were used to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2, separately for women under non-universal testing (testing by indication) and universal testing (testing of all pregnant women in contact with a delivery ward). We also investigated underlying characteristics associated with testing for SARS-CoV-2. Overall, 2.1% of pregnant women in Sweden and 1.1% in Norway were test-positive during the pandemic's first 18 months. We show that the choice of test strategy for SARS-CoV-2 provided different associations with risk factors for the disease; for instance, women who were overweight, obese or had gestational diabetes had increased odds of being test-positive under non-universal testing, but not under universal testing. Nevertheless, a consistent pattern of association between being born in the Middle East and Africa and test-positivity was found independent of test strategy and in both countries. These women were also less likely to get tested. Our results are useful to consider for surveillance and clinical recommendations for pregnant women during the current and future pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/etiology , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , Sweden/epidemiology
3.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 5612, 2022 04 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773993

ABSTRACT

Many studies have investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. Throughout the pandemic, time spent at home increased to a great extent due to restrictive measures. Here we set out to investigate the relationship between housing conditions and the mental health of populations across European countries. We analyzed survey data collected during spring 2020 from 69,136 individuals from four cohorts from Denmark, France, and the UK. The investigated housing conditions included household density, composition, and crowding, access to outdoor facilities, dwelling type, and urbanicity. The outcomes were loneliness, anxiety, and life satisfaction. Logistic regression models were used, and results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, living alone was associated with higher levels of loneliness (OR = 3.08, 95% CI 1.87-5.07), and lower life satisfaction (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-0.55), compared to living with others. Not having access to an outdoor space and household crowding were suggestively associated with worse outcomes. Living in crowded households, living alone, or lacking access to outdoor facilities may be particularly important in contributing to poor mental health during a lockdown. Addressing the observed fundamental issues related to housing conditions within society will likely have positive effects in reducing social inequalities, as well as improving preparedness for future pandemics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Crowding , Family Characteristics , Housing , Humans , Mental Health
4.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 1939, 2022 02 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671615

ABSTRACT

We aimed to investigate if declines in youth's mental health during lockdown were dependent on housing condition among 7445 youth (median age ~ 20 years) from the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), with data collected at 18 years of age and again three weeks into the first national lockdown (April 2020). We examined associations between housing conditions (access to outdoor spaces, urbanicity, household density, and household composition) and changes in mental health (mental well-being, Quality of Life (QoL) and loneliness). We report results from multivariate linear and logistic regression models. Youth without access to outdoor spaces experienced greater declines in mental well-being (vs. garden; mean difference: - 0·75 (95% CI - 1·14, - 0·36)), and correspondingly greater odds of onset of low mental well-being (vs. garden; OR: 1·72 (95% CI 1·20, 2·48)). Youth in higher density households vs. below median or living alone vs. with parents only also had greater odds of onset of low mental well-being (OR: 1·26 (95% CI 1·08, 1·46) and OR: 1·62 (95% CI 1·17, 2·23), respectively). Living in denser households (vs. below median; OR: 1·18 (95% CI 1·06, 1·33), as well as living alone (vs. with parents; OR: 1·38 (95% CI 1·04, 1·82) was associated with onset of low QoL. Living alone more than doubled odds of onset of loneliness compared to living with parents, OR: 2·12 (95% CI 1·59, 2·82). Youth living alone, in denser households, and without direct access to outdoor spaces may be especially vulnerable to mental health declines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Housing Quality , Mental Health , Quarantine/psychology , Adolescent , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Young Adult
5.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 226(4): 550.e1-550.e22, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1509495

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although some studies have reported a decrease in preterm birth following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the incidences of preterm birth before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures in Scandinavian countries using robust population-based registry data. STUDY DESIGN: This was a registry-based difference-in-differences study using births from January 2014 through December 2020 in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The changes in the preterm birth (<37 weeks) rates before and after the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures (set to March 12, 2020) were compared with the changes in preterm birth before and after March 12 from 2014 to 2019. The differences per 1000 births were calculated for 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-week intervals before and after March 12. The secondary analyses included medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, and very preterm (<32 weeks) birth. RESULTS: A total of 1,519,521 births were included in this study. During the study period, 5.6% of the births were preterm in Norway and Sweden, and 5.7% were preterm in Denmark. There was a seasonal variation in the incidence of preterm birth, with the highest incidence during winter. In all the 3 countries, there was a slight overall decline in preterm births from 2014 to 2020. There was no consistent evidence of a change in the preterm birth rates following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures, with difference-in-differences estimates ranging from 3.7 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -3.8 to 11.1) for the first 2 weeks after March 12, 2020, to -1.8 per 1000 births (95% confidence interval, -4.6 to 1.1) in the 16 weeks after March 12, 2020. Similarly, there was no evidence of an impact on medically indicated preterm birth, spontaneous preterm birth, or very preterm birth. CONCLUSION: Using high-quality national data on births in 3 Scandinavian countries, each of which implemented different approaches to address the pandemic, there was no evidence of a decline in preterm births following the introduction of COVID-19 mitigation measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Premature Birth , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Denmark/epidemiology , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pandemics/prevention & control , Premature Birth/epidemiology , Registries , Sweden/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL