Perinatal Outcomes at Birth in Women Infected and Non-Infected with SARS-CoV-2: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared as a pandemic and public health emergency on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization. Different clinical trials on the efficacy of mRNA vaccination have excluded pregnant women, leading to a lack of empirical evidence on the efficacy of the vaccine in this population. The aim of the study was to examine the association between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection at birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in infected and non-infected women from a university hospital in Spain. METHODS: The data were obtained from electronic health records from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. A bivariate descriptive analysis was performed, comparing women with and without confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy using the chi-square test. A multivariate logistic regression was complementarily conducted to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 infection increases the risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 2676 women were divided into two groups: non-infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 2624) and infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 52). Infected women were primarily multiparous (p < 0.03) and had received an incomplete vaccination regimen (p < 0.001). A greater incidence of premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.04) was observed among the non-infected women. Pertaining to perinatal outcomes, there was a notable rise in NICU admissions (p < 0.014), coupled with an extended duration of stay (p < 0.04), for neonates born to infected mothers in comparison to their non-infected counterparts. CONCLUSION: Although SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose significant risks to pregnant women and their infants, adverse obstetrical/puerperal outcomes do not significantly differ between women infected and non-infected to SARS-CoV-2 in our study. NICU admissions were higher for neonates born to infected mothers. Additionally, coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with severe adverse perinatal outcomes.

Indications of Induction and Caesarean Sections Performed Using the Robson Classification in a University Hospital in Spain from 2010 to 2021.

Background: The Robson Ten Group Classification System (RTGCS) enables the assessment, monitoring, and comparison of caesarean section rates both within healthcare facilities and between them, and the indications of caesarean sections (CS) performed in a maternity ward. The aims of the present study were to conduct an analysis to assess the levels and distribution of birth from a descriptive approach by CS in La Ribera University Hospital (Spain) between 2010-2021 using the Robson classification; to describe the indications for the induction of labour and the causes of caesarean sections performed; and to examine the association between the induction of labour and CS birth. Methods: A retrospective study between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2021. All eligible women were classified according to the RTGCS to determine the absolute and relative contribution by each group to the overall CS rate. The odds ratio (OR) of the variables of interest was estimated by logistic regression. In an analysis of the subgroups, the level of significance was adjusted using the Bonferroni method. Results: 20,578 women gave birth during the study period, 19% of them by CS. In 33% of births, induction was performed, and the most common cause was the premature rupture of membranes. Group 2 (nulliparous with induced labour/elective CS before labour) accounted for the largest contribution to the overall rate of CS (31.5%) and showed an upward trend from 23.2% to 39.7% in the time series, increasing the CS rate by 6.7%. The leading cause of CS was suspected fetal distress, followed by induction failure. Conclusions: In our study, Robson Group 2 was identified as the main contributor to the hospital's overall CS rate. Determining the causes of induction and CS in a population sample classified using the RTGCS enables the identification of the groups with the greatest deviation from the optimal rate of CS and the establishment of improvement plans to reduce the overall rate of caesarean sections in the maternity unit.

Comparing Preferred and Actual Clinical Learning Environments and Perceptions of First-Year Nursing Students in Long-Term Care: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The clinical learning environment, which includes the culture of clinical units, the mentoring process, and the different health organizations, influences the learning process of nursing students. However, scarce literature has been published on the impact of the clinical learning environment on first-year nursing students in long-term care. We aimed to assess first-year nursing students 'preferred' and 'actual' clinical learning environments when conducting their first placements in nursing homes within an innovative placement model that comprised the active participation of academic mentors. The validated Spanish version of the Clinical Learning Environment Inventory (CLEI) instrument was used in our study, and 99 first-year nursing students participated. The highest mean scores for the CLEI-Actual were found for the Satisfaction (22.7) and Involvement scales (19.09). The lowest mean scores were found for the Personalization (17) and Individualization (17.27) scales. The multiple correlation (R) between the Satisfaction and the other CLEI scales was 0.61 (p > 0.001), which means that in this study the association between student satisfaction and their perception of the clinical learning environment was strong. First-year students conducting their first clinical placements in nursing homes can have a positive learning experience considering a well-designed and organized pedagogical strategy, including constant support and feedback from academic and clinical mentors.

A comparison between midwifery and obstetric care at birth in Spain: Across-sectional study of perinatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The organizational structure of maternity services determines the choice of which professionals provide care during pregnancy, birth, and the postnatal period, and it influences the kind of care they deliver and the level of continuity of care offered. There is considerable evidence that demonstrates a relationship between how care is provided and the maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Registered midwives and obstetricians provide maternity care across Spain. To date, no studies have assessed whether maternity outcomes differ between these two groups. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the association between the care received (midwifery care versus obstetric care) and the maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with normal, low- and medium-risk pregnancies in Spain from 2016 to 2019. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study was carried out as part of COST Action IS1405 at 44 public hospitals in Spain in the years 2016-2019. The protocol can be accessed through the registry ISRCTN14062994. The sample size of this study was 11,537 women. The primary outcome was mode of birth. The secondary outcomes included augmentation with oxytocin, use of epidural analgesia, women's position at birth, perineal integrity, third stage of labour management, maternal and neonatal admission to intensive care, Apgar score, neonatal resuscitation, and early initiation of breastfeeding. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and independent sample t-test for continuous variables to assess differences between the midwifery and obstetric groups were calculated. Odds ratio with intervals of confidence at 95% were calculated for obstetric interventions and perinatal outcomes. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied in order to examine the effect of type of healthcare provider on perinatal outcomes. These models were adjusted for care provider, type of onset of labour, use of anaesthesia, pregnancy risk, maternal age, parity, and gestational age at birth. RESULTS: Midwifery care was associated with lower rates of operative births and severe perineal damage and had no higher adverse outcomes. No statistically significant differences were observed in the use of other obstetric interventions between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study should encourage a shift in the current maternity care system towards a greater integration of midwifery-led services in order to achieve optimal birth outcomes for women and newborns. REGISTRY NUMBER: ISRCTN14062994.

Induction of labour as compared with spontaneous labour in low-risk women: A multicenter study in Catalonia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare birth and neonatal outcomes in low-risk women undergoing induced labour with those undergoing spontaneous onset. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study included 30 public maternity hospitals in Catalonia between 2016 and 2017. The study population consisted of 5,717 women. RESULTS: Of the 5,717 births, 75.8% had spontaneous onset and 24.2% had an induction. Induced labour was more likely at week 41 of gestation and in nulliparous women. Induced labour increased the likelihood of undergoing caesarean section (adjusted OR [ORa], 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.11-3.16), assisted vaginal birth (ORa, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.46-1.98), epidural analgesia (ORa, 2.64; CI, 2.14-3.27), postpartum haemorrhage (ORa, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14-2.15) and episiotomy (ORa, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.47). Induced labour was also associated with not performing skin-to-skin contact with the mother (ORa, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.58) and with not performing early breastfeeding (ORa, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of labour inductions among low-risk women exceeds the level recommended by scientific organisations in Catalonia and Spain, and is associated with adverse birth outcomes such as increased caesarean section rates, assisted vaginal births, and episiotomy rates. It is also associated with the failure to perform early skin-to-skin contact with the mother and failure to initiate early breastfeeding.

Transfers of Care between Healthcare Professionals in Obstetric Units of Different Sizes across Spain and in a Hospital in Ireland: The MidconBirth Study.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, the majority of healthy women give birth at conventional obstetric units with the assistance of registered midwives. This study examines the relationships between the intrapartum transfer of care (TOC) from midwife to obstetrician-led maternity care, obstetric unit size (OUS) with different degrees of midwifery autonomy, intrapartum interventions and birth outcomes. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study promoted by the COST Action IS1405 was carried out at eight public hospitals in Spain and Ireland between 2016-2019. The primary outcome was TOC. The secondary outcomes included type of onset of labour, oxytocin stimulation, epidural analgesia, type of birth, episiotomy/perineal injury, postpartum haemorrhage, early initiation of breastfeeding and early skin-to-skin contact. A logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of studied co-variables on the likelihood that participants had a TOC; Results: Out of a total of 2,126 low-risk women, those whose intrapartum care was initiated by a midwife (1772) were selected. There were statistically significant differences between TOC and OUS (S1 = 29.0%, S2 = 44.0%, S3 = 52.9%, S4 = 30.2%, p < 0.001). Statistically differences between OUS and onset of labour, oxytocin stimulation, type of birth and episiotomy or perineal injury were observed (p = 0.009, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001 respectively); Conclusions: Findings suggest that the model of care and OUS have a significant effect on the prevalence of intrapartum TOC and the birth outcomes. Future research should examine how models of care differ as a function of the OUS in a hospital, as well as the cost-effectiveness for the health care system.

Interventions across the Retirement Transition for Improving Well-Being: A Scoping Review.

(1) Background: The work-to-retirement transition involves a process of psychologically and behaviorally distancing oneself from the workforce that is often accompanied by other social changes, which can influence health and well-being. However, research on interventions targeting the work-to-retirement transition to improve health status is limited. Our objective was to summarize and describe interventions aiming to improve well-being across the retirement transition; (2) Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley; the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines as well as the PRISMA-ScR statements; we systematically searched articles and gray literature to identify interventions and policies that aimed to improve well-being across the retirement transition. (3) Results: 15 publications were included, which comprised both experimental designs (n = 10) and systematic reviews (n = 5). (4) Conclusions: More research on how to promote overall well-being during the work-to-retirement transition is needed. The results of this scoping review show that most reported interventions address one single lifestyle behavior, and that relevant social determinants of health have been barely considered in their design. Future investigations need to consider vulnerable groups and country-specific structural conditions. Adopting a patient and public involvement approach will contribute to developing interventions that address the significant needs of those in the transition to retirement.

Interventions across the retirement transition for improving well-being: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The work-to-retirement transition involves a process of psychologically and behaviourally distancing oneself from the workforce that is often accompanied by other social changes. The person is confronted with new social roles, expectations, challenges and opportunities that can influence lifestyle and well-being. In the scientific literature, we find recent reports of interventions aimed at improving health and well-being in people at retirement age. However, there is still a gap of knowledge on how different interventions during retirement might improve health status. We intend to conduct a scoping review with the aim of describing interventions for improving well-being across the retirement transition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The methodological framework described by Arksey and O'Malley; the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for scoping reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols statements will be followed. Eligibility criteria comprise of: (a) all type of original studies, review articles or reports published on journals as well as grey literature; (b) describing interventions to improve the well-being in adults across their retirement transition; (c) including participants before, during and after retirement; (d) all publications must describe variables associated with participants' physical and/or psychological and/or social well-being and/or perceived quality of life related to these; (e) no language restriction and (f) published from January 2000 to March 2019. The main findings will be summarised using a narrative descriptive synthesis approach and grouped following the population, concept and context principles. A stakeholder meeting will be held to provide feedback on the findings and to develop next steps in research and practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from a research ethics committee is not required, as no personal information will be collected. We plan to disseminate our research findings at different levels: scientific community, clinical and social arenas, as well as to healthcare leaders and policymakers and general population. The project has been registered at Open Science Framework with the name TRANSITS: work to retirement transition project.