Search

Aim: To clarify the state of screening and support systems for socially high‐risk pregnant women at obstetric facilities across Japan and identify the characteristics of facilities related to the implementation of screening. Methods: This cross‐sectional study used a self‐administered questionnaire. Participants were managers of hospitals, clinics, and midwifery birth centers handling deliveries in 47 prefectures across Japan. The questionnaire comprised items regarding the characteristics of participants and their facilities, service provision related to socially high‐risk women available at the facility, the number of specified pregnant women (tokutei ninpu) per year, methods of screening, and support systems within the obstetric facilities. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed using IBM‐SPSS version 24 for the association between facility characteristics and screening practices for socially high‐risk pregnant women. Results: Valid responses were received from 716 of 2512 obstetric facilities. Rates of specified expectant mothers per annual number of deliveries were identified as follows: perinatal medical centers (2.7%), general hospitals (1.6%), obstetrics and gynecology hospitals (1.0%), and clinics (0.8%). A total of 426 facilities (60.6%) reported screening all expectant mothers to identify socially high‐risk pregnant women. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that facility characteristics and service/care provision related to screening practices included availability of in‐hospital midwife‐led care and in‐hospital midwifery clinics (adjusted odds ratio 1.61; 95% CI [1.30, 1.47]), one‐on‐one care by midwife (1.73; 95% CI [1.15, 2.59]), multidisciplinary meetings within the facility (1.70; 95% CI [1.14, 2.56]), follow‐up support systems after discharge (1.90; 95% CI [1.17, 3.09]), and participation in the regional council for children in need of protection (2.33; 95% CI [1.13, 4.81]). Conclusions: Approximately 60% of surveyed obstetric facilities screen for socially high‐risk women. Increasing service provision at facilities may be necessary to implement screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has dramatically affected pregnant people's prenatal care, labor, and delivery experiences. Given these rapid changes, providers have needed to be proactive in sharing information about COVID‐19‐related care impacts. The purpose of this study was to investigate: (a) Whether patient demographics or disrupted care (eg, canceled appointments and rapid shift to telehealth) is associated with patient‐reported information sharing from the providers; and (b) Whether patient‐reported provider information sharing or disruptions to care are associated with patient satisfaction with provider. Methods: Data come from a convenience sample of 1999 pregnant people living in the United States who completed an online survey between April 16 and May 7 2020. Results: Thirty‐eight percent of participants said that their provider had not discussed how the pandemic would affect their care during pregnancy, labor, or delivery. Participants with lower education, less income, or whose appointments had been canceled or rescheduled because of the pandemic were significantly less likely to report information sharing. Provider satisfaction was significantly lower among participants who did not report information sharing, those who had appointments by way of telehealth, and those who reported that all their appointments had been rescheduled/canceled. Discussion: At the beginning of the pandemic, there were significant socioeconomic inequities in reported information sharing by the providers, which in turn was negatively associated with provider satisfaction. Providers need to be aware of the role implicit bias may play in information sharing—both generally and during public health crises—and consider ways to reduce the impacts of disrupted care delivery on patient satisfaction. If left unaddressed, perceived poor provider communication and associated low satisfaction with providers could contribute to adverse perinatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The delivery of nutrition‐related interventions and counselling during antenatal care is critical for a healthy pregnancy for both mother and child. However, the accuracy of maternal reports of many of these services during household surveys has not yet been examined. Our objectives were to assess the validity of the maternal reports of 10 antenatal nutrition interventions, including counselling, and examine associates between maternal characteristics and accuracy. Maternal report of services received collected during a post‐partum survey was compared to the gold standard, the direct observation of all women's antenatal care visits. Individual‐level validity was assessed by calculating indicator sensitivity, specificity and area under the operating curve (AUC). The inflation factor (IF) measured population‐level bias. For five indicators, the high true coverage limited our ability to assess the validity of the maternal reports. There were no indicators that had both high individual‐level validity (AUC > 0.70) and low population bias (0.75 < IF < 1.25). Indicators with greater true coverage estimates had higher sensitivity and lower specificity estimates compared to those indicators with lower true coverage. There were no maternal characteristics associated with the accuracy of the report. Maternal report of antenatal nutrition‐related interventions and counselling during household surveys was found to have variable validity across indicators. Additional research in settings with varying coverage levels should be considered to best inform antenatal care coverage measurement in household surveys. Key Messages: The coverage of nutrition‐related interventions and counselling was high (>89%) for the majority of indicators.Maternal reports resulted in higher coverage estimates than what was observed for all but one indicator.No indicator assessed had high individual level validity (AUC > 0.70) and low population bias (0.75 < IF < 1.25).The greater the indicator's true coverage estimate, the greater the sensitivity and lower the specificity values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]