COVID-19 in the context of pregnancy, infancy and parenting (CoCoPIP) study: protocol for a longitudinal study of parental mental health, social interactions, physical growth and cognitive development of infants during the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: While the secondary impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being of pregnant women and parents has become apparent over the past year, the impact of these changes on early social interactions, physical growth and cognitive development of their infants is unknown, as is the way in which a range of COVID-19-related changes have mediated this impact. This study (CoCoPIP) will investigate: (1) how parent's experiences of the social, medical and financial changes during the pandemic have impacted prenatal and postnatal parental mental health and parent-infant social interaction; and (2) the extent to which these COVID-19-related changes in parental prenatal and postnatal mental health and social interaction are associated with fetal and infant development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CoCoPIP study is a national online survey initiated in July 2020. This ongoing study (n=1700 families currently enrolled as of 6 May 2021) involves both quantitative and qualitative data being collected across pregnancy and infancy. It is designed to identify the longitudinal impact of the pandemic from pregnancy to 2 years of age as assessed using a range of parent- and self-report measures, with the aim of identifying if stress-associated moderators (ie, loss of income, COVID-19 illness, access to ante/postnatal support) appear to impact parental mental health, and in turn, infant development. In addition, we aim to document individual differences in social and cognitive development in toddlers who were born during restrictions intended to mitigate COVID-19 spread (eg, social distancing, national lockdowns). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given by the University of Cambridge, Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2020.077). Findings will be made available via community engagement, public forums (eg, social media,) and to national (eg, NHS England) and local (Cambridge Universities Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) healthcare partners. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviews journals.

Expectant parents' perceptions of healthcare and support during COVID-19 in the UK: a thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expectant parents experienced changes in the availability and uptake of both National Health Service (NHS) community and hospital-based healthcare. OBJECTIVE: To examine how COVID-19 and its societal related restrictions have impacted the provision of healthcare support for pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A thematic analysis using an inductive approach was undertaken using data from open-ended responses to the national COVID in Context of Pregnancy, Infancy and Parenting (CoCoPIP) Study online survey (n = 507 families). FINDINGS: The overarching theme identified was the way in which the changes to healthcare provision increased parents' anxiety levels, and feelings of not being supported. Five sub-themes, associated with the first wave of the pandemic, were identified: (1) rushed and/or fewer antenatal appointments, (2) lack of sympathy from healthcare workers, (3) lack of face-to-face appointments, (4) requirement to attend appointments without a partner, and (5) requirement to use PPE. A sentiment analysis, that used quantitative techniques, revealed participant responses to be predominantly negative (50.1%), with a smaller proportion of positive (21.8%) and neutral (28.1%) responses found. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence indicating that the changes to healthcare services for pregnant women during the pandemic increased feelings of anxiety and have left women feeling inadequately supported. Our findings highlight the need for compensatory social and emotional support for new and expectant parents while COVID-19 related restrictions continue to impact on family life and society.

Giving birth in a pandemic: women's birth experiences in England during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Expectant parents worldwide have experienced changes in the way they give birth as a result of COVID-19, including restrictions relating to access to birthing units and the presence of birthing partners during the birth, and changes to birth plans. This paper reports the experiences of women in England. METHODS: Data were obtained from both closed- and open-ended responses collected as part of the national COVID in Context of Pregnancy, Infancy and Parenting (CoCoPIP) Study online survey (n = 477 families) between 15th July 2020 - 29th March 2021. Frequency data are presented alongside the results of a sentiment analysis; the open-ended data was analysed thematically. RESULTS: Two-thirds of expectant women reported giving birth via spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) (66.1%) and a third via caesarean section (CS) (32.6%) or 'other' (1.3%). Just under half (49.7%) of the CS were reported to have been elective/planned, with 47.7% being emergencies. A third (37.4%) of participants reported having no changes to their birth (as set out in their birthing plan), with a further 25% reporting COVID-related changes, and 37.4% reporting non-COVID related changes (e.g., changes as a result of birthing complications). One quarter of the sample reported COVID-related changes to their birth plan, including limited birthing options and reduced feelings of control; difficulties accessing pain-relief and assistance, and feelings of distress and anxiety. Under half of the respondents reported not knowing whether there could be someone present at the birth (44.8%), with 2.3% of respondents reporting no birthing partner being present due to COVID-related restrictions. Parental experiences of communication and advice provided by the hospital prior to delivery were mixed, with significant stress and anxiety being reported in relation to both the fluctuating guidance and lack of certainty regarding the presence of birthing partners at the birth. The sentiment analysis revealed that participant experiences of giving birth during the pandemic were predominately negative (46.9%) particularly in relation to the first national lockdown, with a smaller proportion of positive (33.2%) and neutral responses (19.9%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of parents reporting birthing interventions (i.e., emergency CS) was higher than previously reported, as were uncertainties related to the birth, and poor communication, leading to increased feelings of anxiety and high levels of negative emotions. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Inflammatory bowel disease: a Canadian burden of illness review.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) - Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) - significantly impact quality of life and account for substantial costs to the health care system and society. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive review and summary of the burden of IBD that encompasses the epidemiology, direct medical costs, indirect costs and humanistic impact of these diseases in Canada. METHODS: A literature search focused on Canadian data sources. Analyses were applied to the current 2012 Canadian population. RESULTS: There are approximately 233,000 Canadians living with IBD in 2012 (129,000 individuals with CD and 104,000 with UC), corresponding to a prevalence of 0.67%. Approximately 10,200 incident cases occur annually. IBD can be diagnosed at any age, with typical onset occurring in the second or third decade of life. There are approximately 5900 Canadian children <18 years of age with IBD. The economic costs of IBD are estimated to be $2.8 billion in 2012 (almost $12,000 per IBD patient). Direct medical costs exceed $1.2 billion per annum and are driven by cost of medications ($521 million), hospitalizations ($395 million) and physician visits ($132 million). Indirect costs (society and patient costs) total $1.6 billion and are dominated by long-term work losses of $979 million. Compared with the general population, the quality of life patients experience is low across all dimensions of health. CONCLUSIONS: The present review documents a high burden of illness from IBD due to its high prevalence in Canada combined with high per-patient costs. Canada has among the highest prevalence and incidence rates of IBD in the world. Individuals with IBD face challenges in the current environment including lack of awareness of IBD as a chronic disease, late or inappropriate diagnosis, inequitable access to health care services and expensive medications, diminished employment prospects and limited community-based support.

The real-world outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in a public health care system.

BACKGROUND: The population-based results of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) in a public health care system have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to compare the one-year outcomes of OPCAB with those of the standard on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (ONCAB) in the province of Ontario. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective, population-based study (n=15,172, with 1660 OPCAB patients) undertaken in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 using clinical and administrative data. Multivariate regression modelling for risk adjustment and propensity matching were used to compare OPCAB with ONCAB for one-year outcomes, including death, repeat revascularization and cardiac readmission. RESULTS: The rate of OPCAB was 11%, with institutional rates ranging from 3% to 51%. OPCAB patients were more likely to be female and older than 79 years of age, with peripheral vascular disease and higher socioeconomic status. OPCAB patients were less likely to have surgically significant coronary disease, poor left ventricular function, an urgent status, congestive heart failure and diabetes. The risk-adjusted one-year composite outcome was higher for OPCAB (11.8%, 95% CI 10.40% to 13.29%) than ONCAB (10.8%, 95% CI 10.23% to 11.27%); however, this difference was eliminated with propensity matching. OPCAB patients had shorter hospital lengths of stay and lower blood product transfusion rates than ONCAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the minimal use of OPCAB in Canada's public health care system, outcome rates are similar to those of ONCAB. The benefits of OPCAB observed in randomized trials, including shorter hospital lengths of stay and lower transfusion rates, remained true in the investigators' real-world experience. The results OPCAB were at least equivalent to those of ONCAB.

Delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the management of acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: summary of the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario Consensus Report.

Tremendous debate has developed over the efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with fibrinolysis as the preferred treatment for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In 2002, the Ontario Ministry of Heath and Long-Term Care commissioned the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario to develop consensus recommendations regarding the provincial coordination and provision of urgent PCI for STEMI patients. The panel's work has provided important insights into the acute treatment of STEMI that may be useful to other jurisdictions and may provide a reference for other regions considering the implementation of primary PCI for the management of STEMI patients in their community. In the present report, the evidence for primary PCI is reviewed, the important barriers to implementing this strategy are summarized and several recommendations and models of care for the delivery of primary PCI for STEMI on a wide scale are presented.

General commentary on access to cardiovascular care in Canada: universal access, but when? Treating the right patient at the right time.

In 2004, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society formed an Access to Care Working Group with a mandate to use the best science and information available to establish reasonable triage categories and safe wait times for common cardiovascular services and procedures through a series of commentaries. The present commentary is the first in the series and lays out issues regarding timely access to care that are common to all cardiovascular services and procedures. The commentary briefly describes the 'right' to timely access, wait lists as a health care system management tool, and the role of the physician as patient advocate and gatekeeper. It also provides advice to funders, administrators and providers who must monitor and manage wait times to improve access to cardiovascular care in Canada and restore the confidence of Canadians in their publicly funded health care system.

Treating the right patient at the right time: access to care in non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

In 2004, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society formed an Access to Care Working Group with a mandate to use the best science and information available to establish reasonable triage categories and safe wait times for common cardiovascular services and procedures through a series of commentaries. The present commentary discusses the rationale for access benchmarks for urgent cardiac catheterization and revascularization, including hospital transfer in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. The literature on standards of care, wait times, wait list management and clinical trials was reviewed. A survey of all cardiac catheterization directors in Canada was performed to develop an inventory of current practices in identifying and triaging patients. The Working Group recommended the following medically acceptable wait times for access to diagnostic catheterization and revascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: for diagnostic catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention, the target should be 24 h to 48 h for high-risk, three to five days for intermediate-risk and five to seven days for low-risk patients; for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, the target should be three to five days for high-risk, two to three weeks for intermediate-risk and six weeks for low-risk patients. All stakeholders must affirm the appropriateness of these standards and work continuously to achieve them. However, some questions remain around what are the best clinical risk markers to delineate the triage categories and the utility of clinical risk scores to assist clinicians in triaging patients for invasive therapies.