Search

Objective Measles immunity testing, unlike that for rubella, is not currently part of prenatal screening even though immunity to both is conferred by the measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine. Although endemic transmission of measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2001, outbreaks have continued to occur. Given the risks associated with measles infection during pregnancy, we sought to identify risk factors for measles nonimmunity (MNI) in rubella-immune (RI) pregnant individuals. Methods We performed a retrospective observational cross-sectional study of patients receiving prenatal care and delivering at two university hospitals and a county hospital in Southern California from April 1, 2019 to February 1, 2021. Inclusion criteria were pregnant individuals ≥18 years old who had serological testing for rubella and measles during pregnancy. Demographic data were extracted from electronic medical records, including results of serological testing and chronic medical conditions. All subjects were rubella immune, and we compared measles-immune (MI) with MNI groups. Results In total, 1,813 RI individuals were identified, with 1,467 (81%) MI and 346 (19%) MNI individuals. Variables associated with an increased risk of MNI included having public health insurance (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24, 1.97) and Hispanic ethnicity (aRR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.78). Black race was associated with a decreased risk of MNI (aRR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.91). Birth year before 1989 demonstrated a trend toward increased risk of MNI, but this did not reach statistical significance (aRR 1.23; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.52). No differences were seen between the two groups for medical comorbidities. Conclusion Our study is the first to demonstrate risk factors for measles MNI in patients with documented rubella immunity. In the absence of universal measles serological screening recommendations, the risk factors identified could help guide clinicians in selective screening for those at risk of needing postpartum MMR vaccination. Key Points The rate of measles nonimmunity is higher than previously reported. Hispanic ethnicity and use of public insurance are risk factors for measles nonimmunity. The current recommendation for history-based screening for measles immunity is likely insufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 24-h rooming-in policy is crucial to the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) for promoting breastfeeding. However, this policy may restrict maternal autonomy. In 2018, to integrate women's preferences into care decisions, Taiwan's Baby-Friendly certification included prenatal shared decision-making (SDM) for rooming-in. Prior to 2018, maternal knowledge, considerations, and intentions regarding rooming-in and the impact of prenatal SDM were unknown. Methods: A retrospective electronic medical record cohort study was conducted in southern Taiwan. Data on healthy postpartum women eligible for rooming-in and breastfeeding for the years 2017 and 2019, reflecting the periods before and after prenatal SDM was introduced, were gathered. Maternal and newborn characteristics, maternal knowledge, considerations, and prenatal intentions for postpartum rooming-in and breastfeeding during hospitalization were collected. Additionally, data on actual postpartum rooming-in practices during hospitalization and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) practices from birth to hospital discharge, to 1 month, and to 2 months postpartum were collected. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics were applied to analyze the data. Results: A total of 621 women in 2017 and 311 women in 2019 were included. After prenatal SDM was introduced, the rooming-in rate during hospitalization fell from 42.2% in 2017 to 25.6% in 2019 (p < 0.001), and the EBF rate declined from 45.9% to 35.7% (p = 0.01). Additionally, the 1-month postpartum EBF rate decreased from 46.4% in 2017 (n = 571) to 44.3% in 2019 (n = 264), and the 2-month postpartum EBF rate dropped from 45.5% in 2017 (n = 591) to 40.2% (n = 308). According to the 2019 Patient Decision Aids responses (n = 236), women demonstrated limited understanding of rooming-in, with only 40.7% expressing an intention toward 24-h rooming-in. Women of older maternal age (p < 0.001), with a graduate degree (p = 0.02), full-time employment (p = 0.04), and concerns about rest disruption (p < 0.001), were more likely to prefer non-24-h rooming-in. Conclusions: Initiatives must promote prenatal SDM to enable healthcare providers to address misconceptions and tailor education, thereby increasing women's intention toward 24-h rooming-in and EBF. Future research should explore women's experiences and unmet needs at BFHI facilities to inform the construction of a baby- and mother-friendly environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We aimed to investigate the impact of reduced contact prenatal care necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic on meeting standards of care and perinatal outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients in low-risk obstetrics clinic at a tertiary care county facility serving solely publicly insured patients comparing reduced in-person prenatal care (R) over 12 weeks with a control group (C) receiving traditional prenatal care who delivered prior. Results: Total 90 patients in reduced contact (R) cohort were matched with controls (C). There were similar rates of standard prenatal care metrics between groups. Gestational age (GA) of anatomy ultrasound was later in R (p = 0.017). Triage visits and missed appointments were similar, though total number of visits (in-person and telehealth) was higher in R (p = 0.043). R group had higher GA at delivery (p = 0.001). Composite neonatal morbidity and length of stay were lower in R (p = 0.017, p = 0.048). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not otherwise differ between groups. Using Kotelchuck Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization index, R had higher rates of adequate prenatal care (45.6% R vs. 24.4% C, p = 0.005). Discussion: Our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of a hybrid, reduced schedule prenatal schedule to traditional prenatal scheduling. In a reduced contact prenatal care model, more patients met criteria for adequate prenatal care, likely due to higher attendance of telehealth visits. These findings raise the question of revising the prenatal care model to mitigate disparities in disadvantaged populations. Significance: Recent studies have explored the impact of reduced prenatal care models on obstetrical outcomes with overall mixed findings. We aimed to investigate the impact of a reduced contact prenatal care model necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic on meeting standards of care and obstetric outcomes. We found that in a reduced contact prenatal care model, more patients obtained adequate prenatal care, standards of care were met, and obstetrical outcomes were similar to that of controls. These findings raise the question of raising the question of pursuing a revised prenatal care model in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]