COVID-19 fear, vaccination hesitancy, and vaccination status in pregnant and breastfeeding women in Turkey.

This study aimed to determine the level of COVID-19 fear, vaccination, and vaccination hesitancy as well as the affecting factors in pregnant and breastfeeding women who participated in an online prenatal education in Turkey. The study, which was designed as descriptive cross-sectional, was conducted online with 360 pregnant and breastfeeding women from Istanbul. Data were collected through the Participant Information Form, Fear of COVID-19 Scale and Vaccine Hesitancy Scale in Pandemics. The rate of accepting the COVID-19 vaccine is 65.6%. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale was 16.215.54, and the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale in Pandemics mean score was 29.294.54. The COVID-19 fear of the women participating in this study was moderate, the level of vaccination hesitancy was low, and two-thirds of them were vaccinated. There is a need to organize special counseling and vaccination campaigns for pregnant and lactating women.

Maternal Immunization During the Second Trimester with BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Induces a Robust IgA Response in Human Milk: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The human milk antibody response following maternal immunization with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is important for the protection of the infant during infancy. The vaccine-specific antibody response is still unclear at different stages of human milk production, as are the effects of maternal immunization timing on the robustness of the antibody response. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the antibody response (IgG/IgA/IgM) during various lactation stages and identify the best vaccination timing during pregnancy. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 73 postpartum women who were administered the BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine during the second or third trimester of pregnancy were recruited. Statistical comparison was conducted using 16 human milk samples from a prepandemic control group. RESULTS: Excluding 11 women, the study included 62 lactating women who were administered the mRNA vaccine during the second or third trimester of pregnancy. A total of 149 samples of human milk were collected at different lactation stages. Our findings reveal that colostrum exhibits significantly higher levels of IgG (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3, 9.0; P = 0.023), IgA (95% CI: 55.98, 100.2; P = 0.0034), and IgM (95% CI: 0.03, 0.62; P < 0.0001) compared with mature milk IgG (95% CI: 0.25, 0.43), IgA (95% CI: 9.65, 13.74), IgM (95% CI: 0.03, 0.04). The timing of maternal immunization affected the antibody response. The level of IgA in mature milk was higher when immunization occurred in the second trimester (95% CI: 11.14, 19.66; P = 0.006) than in the third trimester (95% CI: 7.16, 11.49). Conversely, IgG levels in mature milk were higher when immunization occurred during the third trimester (95% CI: 0.36, 0.65; P < 0.0001) than in the second trimester (95% CI: 0.09, 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that administering the mRNA vaccine to pregnant women during the second trimester increases vaccine-specific IgA levels during lactation. Considering the significance of human milk IgA in mucosal tissues and its prevalence throughout lactation, it is reasonable to recommend maternal immunization with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine during the second trimester. This trial was registered at the Helsinki Committee of the Tel Aviv Medical Center as clinical trial number 0172-TLV.

Understanding COVID-19 vaccination decisions during pregnancy and while breastfeeding in a Canadian province.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination in pregnancy is important for preventing illness for mothers and babies; however, vaccine uptake in pregnant individuals is lower than non-pregnant females of fertile age. Given the devastating effects of COVID-19 and the increased morbidity and mortality risk for pregnant individuals, it is important to understand the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in pregnancy. The focus of our study was to explore COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant and breastfeeding individuals and its association with their reasons (psychological factors) for vaccination using the 5C scale and other factors. METHODS: An online survey investigating prior vaccinations, level of trust in healthcare providers, demographic information, and the 5C scale was used for, pregnant and breastfeeding individuals in a Canadian province. RESULTS: Prior vaccinations, higher levels of trust in medical professionals, education, confidence, and collective responsibility predicted increased vaccine uptake pregnant and breastfeeding individuals. CONCLUSIONS: There are specific psychological and socio-demographic determinants that affect COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant populations. Implications of these findings include targeting these determinants when informing and developing intervention and educational programs for both pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, as well as healthcare professionals who are making vaccine recommendations to patients. Study limitations include a small sample and lack of ethnic and socioeconomic diversity.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among women planning for pregnancy, pregnant or breastfeeding mothers in Jordan: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Women planning to become pregnant, who are pregnant, and who are breastfeeding are more hesitant to take COVID-19 vaccines compared to other women globally. AIM: This study investigates COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among women, who are planning for pregnancy, currently pregnant, and breastfeeding women in Jordan. METHODS: An online cross-sectional study was conducted in the biggest three cities in Jordan, including 874 women. RESULTS: Women who were planning for pregnancy, pregnant, or breastfeeding reported statistically significant lower levels of perception of the seriousness of COVID-19 (7.12 ± 0.72, 7.53 ± 1.80, 7.2439 ± 7296, respectively), significant lower levels of perceived benefits of the vaccine (8.92 ± 2.15, 8.73 ± 1.93, 9.09 ± 2.10, respectively), significant lower levels of motivation and causes of action (7.15 ± 1.71, 6.7524 ± 1.40, 7.27 ± 1.68, respectively), and significantly higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy (31.32 ± 6.40, 30.11 ± 4.49, 30.27 ± 6.29, respectively) than other women. Married women, those whoe were previously infected with COVID-19, and those who had chronic diseases reported statistically significant lower levels of perception of COVID-19 seriousness, perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccine, motivation to take COVID-19 vaccine, and causes of action, and significantly higher levels of hesitancy to take COVID-19 vaccine than unmarried women, those who have not been infected with COVID-19, and those who were medically healthy (p<0.001). There were statistically significant positive correlations between perception, perceived benefits, motivation, and cause of action with years of education; and statistically significant negative correlations between perception, perceived benefits, motivation, and cause of action with age (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women who were planning for pregnancy, pregnant, or breastfeeding in Jordan showed miderate scores in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy despite the current international recommendations for its safety for women and their foetuses or neonates.

Impact of maternal SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination on blood and breastmilk antibodies.

Maternal COVID-19 vaccination could protect infants who are ineligible for vaccine through antibody transfer during pregnancy and lactation. We measured the quantity and durability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human milk and infant blood before and after maternal booster vaccination. Prospective cohort of lactating women immunized with primary and booster COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy or lactation and their infants. Milk and blood samples from October 2021 to April 2022 were included. Anti-nucleoprotein (NP) and anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG and IgA in maternal milk and maternal and infant blood were measured and compared longitudinally after maternal booster vaccine. Forty-five lactating women and their infants provided samples. 58% of women were anti-NP negative and 42% were positive on their first blood sample prior to booster vaccine. Anti-RBD IgG and IgA in milk remained significantly increased through 120-170 days after booster vaccine and did not differ by maternal NP status. Anti-RBD IgG and IgA did not increase in infant blood after maternal booster. Of infants born to women vaccinated in pregnancy, 74% still had positive serum anti-RBD IgG measured on average 5 months after delivery. Infant to maternal IgG ratio was highest for infants exposed to maternal primary vaccine during the second trimester compared to third trimester (0.85 versus 0.29; p<0.001). Maternal COVID-19 primary and booster vaccine resulted in robust and long-lasting transplacental and milk antibodies. These antibodies may provide important protection against SARS-CoV-2 during the first six months of life.

Short-term adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines after the first, second, and booster doses: a cross-sectional survey from Punjab, Pakistan, and the implications.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy concerns regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are common among the public and have a negative impact on their uptake. We aimed to report the adverse effects currently associated with the vaccine in Pakistan to build confidence among the population for its adoption. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in five districts of the Punjab province of Pakistan between January and March 2022. The participants were recruited using convenience sampling. All data were analyzed using SPSS 22. RESULTS: We recruited 1622 people with the majority aged between 25-45 years. Of these, 51% were female, including 27 pregnant women and 42 lactating mothers. Most participants had received the Sinopharm (62.6%) or Sinovac (17.8%) vaccines. The incidences of at least one side effect after the first (N = 1622), second (N = 1484), and booster doses (N = 219) of the COVID-19 vaccine were 16.5%, 20.1%, and 32%, respectively. Inflammation/erythema at the injection site, pain at the injection site, fever, and bone/muscle pain were common side effects of vaccination. No significant differences were observed in the adverse effect scores between all demographic variables except for pregnancy (P = 0.012) after the initial dose. No significant association was observed between any variable and the side effect scores of the second and booster doses of the vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a 16-32% prevalence of self-reported side effects after the first, second, and booster COVID-19 vaccinations. Most adverse effects were mild and transient, indicating the safety of different COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccine decision-making among pregnant and lactating women in Bangladesh.

Pregnant and lactating women's vaccine decision-making process is influenced by many factors. Pregnant women were at increased risk for severe disease and poor health outcomes from COVID-19 at various time points during the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines have been found to be safe and protective during pregnancy and while breastfeeding. In this study, we sought to examine key factors that informed the decision-making process among pregnant and lactating women in Bangladesh. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews, with 12 pregnant and 12 lactating women. These women were from three communities in Bangladesh: one urban community, and two rural communities. We used a grounded theory approach to identify emerging themes and organized emerging themes using a socio-ecological model. The socio-ecological model suggests that individuals are influenced by many levels, including individual-level influences, interpersonal-level influences, health care system-level influences, and policy-level influences. We found key factors at each socio-ecological level that influenced the decision-making process of pregnant and lactating women, including perceived benefits of vaccines and vaccine safety (individual-level), the influence of husbands and peers (interpersonal-level), health care provider recommendations and vaccine eligibility (health care system-level), and vaccine mandates (policy-level). As vaccination can reduce the effect of COVID-19 disease in mothers, infants, and unborn children, targeting critical factors that inform the decision-making process is paramount for improving vaccine acceptance. We hope the results of this study will inform vaccine acceptance efforts to ensure that pregnant and lactating women take advantage of this life-saving intervention.

Vaccination Beliefs and Attitudes of Lactating People During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and recently pregnant people have lower vaccination rates against SARS-CoV-2 than the general population, despite increased risk of adverse outcomes from infection. Little is known about vaccine hesitancy in this population. RESEARCH AIM: To characterize SARS-CoV-2 and other vaccine attitudes of lactating people who accepted the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, describing their vaccine experiences to further contextualize their beliefs. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional online survey design was used. We administered the survey to 100 lactating people in Pennsylvania from April to August 2021, upon enrollment into a longitudinal study investigating SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibodies in human milk. This survey assessed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine attitudes, vaccine counseling from providers, and vaccine decision making. Associations between vaccination timing and beliefs were analyzed by Pearson chi-square. RESULTS: Of 100 respondents, all received ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine before or shortly after enrollment, with 44% (n = 44) vaccinated in pregnancy and 56% (n = 56) while lactating. Participants reported vaccination counseling by obstetric (n = 48; 70%) and pediatric (n = 25; 36%) providers. Thirty-two percent (n = 32) received no advice on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination from healthcare providers, while 69% (n = 69) were counseled that vaccination was safe and beneficial.While 6% (n = 6) and 5% (n = 5) reported concerns about the safety of maternal vaccines for lactating people or their infants, respectively, 12% (n = 12) and 9% (n = 9) expressed concerns about the safety of maternal SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in particular. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among participants, safety concerns persisted, with many reporting a lack of direct counseling from providers. Future research should investigate how variability in provider counseling affects SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in perinatal populations.

Breastfeeding challenges and opportunities during COVID-19 in Hong Kong.

Barriers to sustain breastfeeding could be time and place specific. Here, we summarise new and old challenges to breastfeeding during COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, some of which were obtained from qualitative in-depth interviews with health-care professionals. We document how unnecessary massive mother-baby separations in hospitals and doubts in COVID-19 vaccine safety seriously harm breastfeeding. We also discuss how the trends and increase in acceptance of receiving post-natal care from family doctors, online-antenatal class, work-from-home policy and telemedicine implicate new strategies to protect, promote and support breastfeeding during and after the pandemic. The challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic on breastfeeding have revealed new opportunities to support breastfeeding in Hong Kong and similar settings where exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months is still not the norm.

Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic and social media on the behaviour of pregnant and lactating women towards vaccination: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women, foetuses and infants are at risk of infectious disease-related complications. Maternal vaccination is a strategy developed to better protect pregnant women and their offspring against infectious disease-related morbidity and mortality. Vaccines against influenza, pertussis and recently also COVID-19 are widely recommended for pregnant women. Yet, there is still a significant amount of hesitation towards maternal vaccination policies. Furthermore, contradictory messages circulating social media impact vaccine confidence. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to reveal how COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination impacted vaccine confidence in pregnant and lactating women. Additionally, this review studied the role social media plays in creating opinions towards vaccination in these target groups. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published between 23 November 2018 and 18 July 2022 that are linked to the objectives of this review were included. Reviews, articles not focusing on the target group, abstracts, articles describing outcomes of COVID-19 infection/COVID-19 vaccination were excluded. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The PubMed database was searched to select articles. Search terms used were linked to pregnancy, lactation, vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19 and social media. CHARTING METHODS: Included articles were abstracted and synthesised by one reviewer. Verification was done by a second reviewer. Disagreements were addressed through discussion between reviewers and other researchers. RESULTS: Pregnant and lactating women are generally less likely to accept a COVID-19 vaccine compared with non-pregnant and non-nursing women. The main reason to refuse maternal vaccination is safety concerns. A positive link was detected between COVID-19 vaccine willingness and acceptance of other vaccines during pregnancy. The internet and social media are identified as important information sources for maternal vaccination. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy in pregnant and lactating women remains an important issue, expressing the need for effective interventions to increase vaccine confidence and coverage. The role social media plays in vaccine uptake remains unclear.

Current Evidence to Guide Practice, Policy, and Research: COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy.

Pregnant and lactating women continue to have some of the lowest levels of vaccine uptake despite COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. It is important to consider why COVID-19 vaccine uptake has lagged counter to robust evidence on vaccine benefits, including concerns about vaccine safety and effectiveness. In this column, I present a summary of research findings, limitations, future directions, and a compilation of guidelines and recommendations from professional and governmental organizations.

Encouraging and Reinforcing Safe Breastfeeding Practices during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

AIM: Promote safe breastfeeding during the pandemic. METHODS: All participants were encouraged to request safe breastfeeding education from their prenatal provider. Pregnant mothers received appropriate breastfeeding and COVID-19 safe breastfeeding education in line with the CDC's COVID-19 breastfeeding guidelines. Data were obtained from 39 mothers attending Nashville General Hospital pediatric well-baby clinics (Group I: from December 2019 to June 2020) and 97 pregnant women attending prenatal clinics (Group II: from July 2020 to August 2021). RESULTS: The participants' ages ranged from 15 to 45 years, with a mean of 27.5 ± 6.2. The women in both groups were similar in age, education, employment, and breastfeeding experience. They were equally unlikely to use face masks at home even while receiving guests or holding their babies. Although 121 (89.0%) women claimed face mask use while shopping, the rate for never doing so was 7 (18.0%) vs. 8 (8.3%) (p < 0.006) for Groups I and II, respectively. Safe practices included limited outing (66 (48.5%)), sanitized hands (62 (45.6%)), restricted visitors (44 (32.4%)), and limited baby outing (27 (19.9%)), and 8 (8.3%) in Group II received COVID-19 vaccinations. About half described fair and accurate COVID-19 safe breastfeeding knowledge, but 22 (30.1%) of them claimed they received no information. Breastfeeding contraindication awareness for Groups I and II were as follows: cocaine = 53.8% vs. 37.1%, p < 0.06; HIV = 35.9% vs. 12.4%, p < 0.002; breast cancer = 17.9% vs. 16.5%; and COVID-19 with symptoms = 28.2% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001. The information source was similar, with family, friends, and media accounting for 77 (56.6%) of women while doctors, nurses, and the CLC was the source for 21 (15.4%) women. Exclusive breastfeeding one month postpartum for Groups I and II was 41.9% and 12.8% (p < 0.006), respectively. CONCLUSION: The mothers were not more knowledgeable regarding breastfeeding safely one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. Conflicting lay information can create healthy behavior ambivalence, which can be prevented by health professionals confidently advising mothers to wear face masks when breastfeeding, restricting visitors and outings, and accepting COVID-19 vaccination. This pandemic remains an open opportunity to promote and encourage breastfeeding to every mother as the default newborn feeding method.

The impact of COVID-19 on select considerations in patients of reproductive age: Brief talking points for pharmacists.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has elicited many health concerns, including the impact of the infection and vaccine on reproductive health. Although robust evidence demonstrates the safety of all available COVID-19 vaccines, misinformation and disinformation related to the vaccine continue to circulate. As accessible and essential health care workers, it is crucial that pharmacists are informed of the evidence related to effects of the COVID-19 infection and vaccinations on reproductive health care. Menstrual cycle changes have been noted owing to COVID-19 infection, pandemic stress, and COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 infection and vaccination have not been shown to influence female fertility, pregnancy rates, and lactation. The use of exogenous estrogen may further contribute to an increased risk of thromboembolism with COVID-19 infection, and differences in the risk of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis appear to exist between the types of vaccines. The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh any risks. Shared decision-making is necessary when discussing vaccination with patients. Pharmacists play a vital role in dispelling misinformation and disinformation related to the impact of COVID-19 illness and vaccination on reproductive health care.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccines During Lactation.

In this review, we summarize the data on the safety and side-effect profile of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines during lactation to date, review what is known about mRNA vaccine components in breast milk, and discuss the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in providing immune protection for the breastfeeding infant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that lactating individuals receive COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and stay up to date on booster doses, including the bivalent COVID-19 booster. The lack of serious side effects in mothers or infants across numerous large studies and registries of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy and lactation is reassuring. Although small quantities of mRNA may be transiently detectable in breast milk after maternal vaccination, there are no data demonstrating that vaccine mRNA can survive the infant gastrointestinal tract and no evidence that breast milk from lactating individuals who have received a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine can cause harm to breastfeeding infants. In contrast, numerous studies demonstrate that the breast milk of vaccinated individuals contains severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific functional antibodies and T cells, which benefit the breastfeeding infant's developing immune system. Transfer of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies from mother to infant is highest when vaccination occurs during pregnancy compared with lactation, because the breastfeeding infant receives both long-lasting antibodies through the placenta and breast-milk antibodies through breast milk. With clear data demonstrating efficacy and safety and no data demonstrating harm to mother or infant after COVID-19 vaccine administration during lactation, any recommendations to avoid vaccination while breastfeeding or to withhold breast milk from the infant for any period of time after vaccination are not supported by available evidence.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG in human milk and breastfeeding infant stool 6 months after maternal COVID-19 vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: Assess presence, durability, and neutralization capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in breastfeeding infants' stool, mother's plasma and milk following maternal vaccination. DESIGN: Thirty-seven mothers and 25 infants were enrolled between December 2020 and November 2021 for this prospective observational study. All mothers were vaccinated during lactation except three, which were vaccinated during pregnancy. Milk, maternal plasma, and infants' stool was collected pre-vaccination and at periods up to 6 months following COVID-19 vaccine series initiation/completion. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and their neutralization capacities were assessed. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG levels were higher in infant stool post-maternal vaccination amongst milk-fed compared to controls. Maternal SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA and IgG concentrations decreased over 6 months post-vaccination but remained higher than pre-vaccination levels. We observed improved neutralization capacity in milk and plasma after COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in infant stool following maternal vaccination offers further evidence of the lasting transfer of these antibodies through breastfeeding.

Worries, beliefs and factors influencing perinatal COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional survey of preconception, pregnant and lactating individuals.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for pregnant and lactating individuals, and there is substantial evidence for their safety and effectiveness. As the pandemic continues, information on worries and beliefs surrounding perinatal COVID-19 vaccination remains important to inform efforts aimed at improving vaccine uptake. Our objectives were to assess factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among perinatal individuals; and to explore motivational factors associated with willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated perinatal individuals. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional web-based survey of preconception, pregnant, and lactating individuals in Canada. The outcomes of interest were vaccination with at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to be vaccinated among unvaccinated individuals. Sample characteristics were summarized using frequencies and percentages. The association between eight prespecified risk factors and two outcomes (vaccination status and willingness to be vaccinated) was assessed by logistic regression. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the total sample, and across perinatal sub-groups. RESULTS: Among 3446 survey respondents, there were 447 (13.0%) preconception, 1832 (53.2%) pregnant, and 1167 (42.4%) lactating. There were 1460 (42.4%) and 1982 (57.5%) who were vaccinated and unvaccinated, respectively. Factors positively associated with COVID-19 vaccine status were speaking to a healthcare provider about vaccination during the perinatal period (aOR:2.35, 95% CI:1.97-2.80) and believing that the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:1.91, 95% CI:1.46-2.48). Factors negatively associated with vaccine status included worries about fetal growth and development (aOR:0.55, 95% CI:0.43-0.70) and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.59, 95% CI:0.46-0.75). Among unvaccinated individuals specifically, characteristics positively associated with willingness to vaccinate were speaking to a healthcare provider (aOR:1.67, 95% CI:1.32-2.12) and believing the COVID-19 vaccine is effective (aOR:3.56, 95% CI:2.70-4.69). Factors negatively associated with willingness were concerns over infertility (aOR:0.66, 95% CI:0.49-0.88), fetal growth and development (aOR:0.33, 95% CI:0.24-0.46), and future child behavioral/neurodevelopmental problems (aOR:0.64, 95% CI:0.48-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: In this Canadian perinatal population, approximately 42% reported COVID-19 vaccination. Among unvaccinated individuals, willingness to receive vaccination was high (73%). Factors enhancing vaccine willingness included discussions with healthcare providers and believing the vaccine was effective. Concerns regarding vaccine safety, particularly with respect to fetal/child development, were the greatest barriers to vaccine uptake.

A socio-ecological exploration to identify factors influencing the COVID-19 vaccine decision-making process among pregnant and lactating women: Findings from Kenya.

The vaccine decision-making process of pregnant and lactating women is complex. Regarding COVID-19, pregnant women are at increased risk for severe disease and poor health outcomes. While pregnant and lactating women were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials, available evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and protective during pregnancy. In this study, we used a socio-ecological approach to explore factors influencing the decision-making process for COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant and lactating women in Kenya, for the purpose of informing demand generation strategies. As pregnant and lactating women are influenced by many factors, we conducted 84 in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders, including 31 pregnant or lactating women, 20 healthcare workers such as nurses, midwives, doctors, and frontline workers, 25 male family members of pregnant or lactating women, and 8 gatekeepers such as community leaders and faith-based leaders. These individuals were recruited from six communities in Kenya: three urban, and three rural. We applied a grounded theory approach to identify emerging themes and organized emerging themes using the SAGE Vaccine Hesitancy model, which includes three categories of determinants of vaccine acceptance, including contextual influences, individual and group influences, and vaccine and vaccination specific issues. Myths, interpersonal norms, and religion emerged as themes related to contextual influences. Safety, risk perception, and the role of the healthcare worker emerged as themes related to individual and group influences. For vaccine and vaccination specific issues, emerging themes included availability, accessibility, and eligibility. While maternal immunization can substantially reduce the effect of infectious diseases in mothers and infants, vaccine acceptance is critical. However, vaccines do not save lives; vaccination does. We hope the results of this study can be used to tailor communication efforts to increase vaccine demand among pregnant and lactating women.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in periconceptional and lactating women: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic of COVID-19 disease has caused severe impact globally. Governments consider vaccination as an effective measure to control pandemic. However, many people have been hesitant to receive COVID-19 vaccine, particularly periconceptional and lactating women. Although research has indicated that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at a higher risk of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, as well as severe illness. There appears to be a lack of systematic and comprehensive evidence of the prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among periconceptional and lactating women. As a result, it has been essential to investigate periconceptional and lactating women's vaccination views and behaviours. This study will review articles on vaccine hesitancy among periconceptional and lactating women to assess the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search observational studies from 1 November 2019 to 30 October 2021 in the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, WHO COVID-19 Database, CNKI and WanFang Database. The following medical subject headings and free-text terms will be used: "COVID-19 vaccines" AND "female" AND "vaccine hesitancy". Eligibility criteria are as follows: population (women of reproductive age); exposure (currently pregnant, lactational or trying to get pregnant); comparison (general women who are not in preconception, gestation or lactation) and outcome (the rate of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy). Article screening and data extraction will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, and any discrepancy will be resolved through discussion. We will use I² statistics to assess heterogeneity and perform a meta-analysis when sufficiently homogeneous studies are provided. We will explore the potential sources of heterogeneity using subgroup and meta-regression analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will use published data, so ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated by publication in peer-reviewed journal(s). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021257511.

Inactivated Covid-19 vaccine did not undermine live birth and neonatal outcomes of women with frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Does inoculation with inactivated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) before frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) affect live birth and neonatal outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER: Inactivated Covid-19 vaccines did not undermine live birth and neonatal outcomes of women planning for FET. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Accumulating reports are now available indicating the safe use of mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 in pregnant and lactating women, and a few reports indicate that they are not associated with adverse effects on ovarian stimulation or early pregnancy outcomes following IVF. Evidence about the safety of inactivated Covid-19 vaccines is very limited. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective cohort analysis from Reproductive Medical Center of a tertiary teaching hospital. Clinical records and vaccination record of 2574 couples with embryos transferred between 1 March 2021 and 30 September 2021 were screened for eligibility of this study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Clinical and vaccination data of infertile couples planning for FET were screened for eligibility of the study. The reproductive and neonatal outcomes of FET women inoculated with inactivated Covid-19 vaccines or not were compared. The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer cycle and newborns' birth height and weight. Secondary outcomes included rates of ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy and spontaneous miscarriage. Multivariate logistical regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were performed to minimize the influence of confounding factors. Subgroup analyses, including single dose versus double dose of the vaccines and the time intervals between the first vaccination and embryo transfer, were also performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Vaccinated women have comparable live birth rates (43.6% versus 45.0% before PSM, P = 0.590; and 42.9% versus 43.9% after PSM, P = 0.688), ongoing pregnancy rates (48.2% versus 48.1% before PSM, P = 0.980; and 52.2% versus 52.7% after PSM, P = 0.875) and clinical pregnancy rate (55.0% versus 54.8% before PSM, P = 0.928; and 54.7% versus 54.2% after PSM, P = 0.868) when compared with unvaccinated counterparts. The newborns' birth length (50.0 ± 1.6 versus 49.0 ± 2.9 cm before PSM, P = 0.116; and 49.9 ± 1.7 versus 49.3 ± 2.6 cm after PSM, P = 0.141) and birth weight (3111.2 ± 349.9 versus 3030.3 ± 588.5 g before PSM, P = 0.544; and 3053.8 ± 372.5 versus 3039.2 ± 496.8 g after PSM, P = 0.347) were all similar between the two groups. Neither single dose nor double dose of vaccines, as well as different intervals between vaccination and embryo transfer showed any significant impacts on reproductive and neonatal outcomes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main findings might be limited by retrospective design. Besides, inoculations of triple dose of Covid-19 vaccines were not available by the time of data collection, thus the results cannot reflect the safe use of triple dose of inactivated Covid-19 vaccines. Finally, history of Covid-19 infection was based on patients' self-report rather than objective laboratory tests. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Eligible individuals of inactivated vaccines against Covid-19 should not postpone vaccination plan because of their embryo transfer schedule, or vice versa. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the Medical Key Discipline of Guangzhou (2021-2023). All authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.