A qualitative study of pregnant women's perceptions and decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccination in Thailand.

To identify pregnant women's attitudes towards, and acceptance and rejection of, COVID-19 vaccination. This prospective, descriptive, implementation study was conducted in the Antenatal clinic of Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. In Phase I, 40 pregnant women were interviewed. Phase II consisted of questionnaire development and data validation. In Phase III, the questionnaire was administered to 400 participants. Pregnant women's attitudes towards and acceptance and rejection of COVID-19 vaccination. Most pregnant women were uncertain about the potential harm of vaccination to themselves or their unborn child, including risks such as miscarriage or premature birth (59-66/101 [58.4%-65.3%]; OR 2.53-8.33; 95% CI 1.23-3.60, 5.17-19.30; P < 0.001) compared to those who disagreed with vaccination. Their vaccination decisions were significantly influenced by social media information regarding vaccination complications in pregnant women (74/101 [73.3%]; OR 15.95; 95% CI 2.15-118.55; P = 0.001) compared to those who disagreed with vaccination. Most pregnant women opined that they should not receive a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 6.57; 95% CI 2.44-17.70; P = 0.001). Most also rejected vaccination despite being aware of its benefits (AOR 17.14; 95% CI 6.89-42.62; P < 0.001). Social media messages and obligatory vaccination certifications influence maternal vaccination decisions. Pregnant women believe vaccination helps prevent COVID-19 infection and reduces its severity. Nevertheless, the primary reason for their refusal was concern about potential harm to their unborn child or themselves during pregnancy.The Thai clinical trials registry: TCTR20211126006.

Identifying the Barriers to Universal Cervical Length Screening for Preterm Birth Prevention at a Tertiary Hospital in Thailand (Physician Perspectives): Implementation Research.

OBJECTIVE: To identify physicians' views on the barriers to measuring cervical length for preventing preterm deliveries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, descriptive implementation study had three phases. In Phase I, 20 physicians were interviewed. Phase II comprised questionnaire development and data validation. The questionnaire was distributed to 120 Phase III participants. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All 120 participants responded. In 44 cases, the physicians received support from their local Maternal and Child Health Boards for preterm-birth-prevention programs; the other 76 physicians did not. The doctors tended to believe that cervical length screening plays no role in preventing preterm births (4/44 (9.1%) and 24/76 (31.6%); OR, 4.615; 95% CI, 1.482-14.373; p = 0.005). They were unsure about the correct measurement procedures (13/44 (29.5%) and 37/76 (48.7%); OR, 2.262; 95% CI, 1.028-4.977; p = 0.040). A lack of cost-free drug support (progesterone) for women with short cervices was identified as a barrier to preventing preterm births (30/44 (68.2%) and 32/76 (42.1%); OR, 0.339; 95% CI, 0.155-0.741; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians are unconvinced that measuring cervical length prevents premature births, and are unsure about the correct measurement procedures. There is a lack of government funding for hormone-usage programs.

Breastfeeding women's attitudes towards and acceptance and rejection of COVID-19 vaccination: Implementation research.

OBJECTIVE: There are few data on lactating women's concerns about receiving COVID-19 vaccination during breastfeeding. This research investigated breastfeeding women's attitudes towards and acceptance or rejection of vaccination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, descriptive, implementation study was conducted in the postpartum ward of Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. In Phase I, 40 breastfeeding women in the postpartum ward at Siriraj Hospital who were willing to participate in the study were interviewed. Phase II comprised questionnaire development and data validation. The combined multiple choice and scaling questionnaires designed based on the results from comprehensive interviews of phase I were used in the study. The questionnaire was administered to 400 participants in Phase III. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Breastfeeding women's attitudes towards and acceptance and rejection of COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: The vast majority of participants (372/400 [93.0 %]) were vaccinated predelivery. Most of the subgroup of women rejecting vaccination while breastfeeding were unsure whether too frequent vaccination would harm their unborn child (52/99 [52.5 %]; crude odds ratio [cOR], 6.50; 95 % CI, 1.47-28.68; P < 0.001). The level of immunity to the COVID-19 virus did not influence their vaccination decisions (19/99 [19.2 %]; cOR, 2.38; 95 % CI, 1.26-4.47; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis found a significant association for women agreeing with the proposition that vaccination during pregnancy should not be performed (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.83; 95 % CI, 1.41-16.57; P = 0.043). Most women who rejected vaccination knew its benefits (aOR, 31.84; 95 % CI, 7.16-141.65; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Breastfeeding women generally believed that vaccines reduce infection and disease severity. The women's COVID-19 immunity levels did not affect their acceptance or rejection of vaccination. Some mothers rejected vaccination because of concerns about possible harm to them or their newborns.

Identifying the barriers to universal cervical length screening for preterm birth prevention at a tertiary hospital in Thailand (patient's perspectives): implementation research.

PURPOSE: To identify patient perspectives of barriers to cervical length screening to prevent preterm births. METHODS: In Phase I of this prospective descriptive implementation study, 40 pregnant women of up to 24 week gestation were interviewed. Phase II comprised questionnaire development and data validation. The questionnaire was subsequently administered to 400 participants in Phase III. RESULTS: Most participants (74.3%) realised preterm babies have complications and high care costs (53%). They recognised that premature-birth risk identification enables appropriate pregnancy care (93.8%), but they were unaware that cervical length measurements indicate the risk (59.5%). The participants who were aware wanted to be examined (63.5%) because of concern about preterm birth (95.8%). Husbands were reported to influence decision-making about screening (81.3%) and subsequent treatment (42.5%). If the associated costs were subsidised, the majority of participants (67.3%) would undergo screening. CONCLUSION: Physicians do not explain ways to prevent preterm births. Government policy on preventing preterm births is not well established. Screening and treatment costs are major barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number: TCTR20190813003.