Search

Background: The Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA) tool screens for anxiety, depression, and psychosocial factors in pregnancy. We aimed to assess the association between PIPA‐determined psychosocial risk and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Methods: Cohort study of all pregnant women who gave birth at ≥20 weeks of gestation in 2017‐2019 at a tertiary maternity hospital in, Sydney, Australia. Women completed PIPA at their first antenatal visit and were assigned a PIPA risk category. At‐risk women were reviewed and referred for support. The association between PIPA risk category and obstetric and neonatal outcomes was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic and pregnancy factors. Results: In all, 5969 women completed PIPA; 71.4% were assessed no/low risk, 17.5% medium risk, and 11.1% medium‐high/high risk. Compared with no/low‐risk women, medium‐high/high‐risk women were more likely to remain in hospital for >72 hours (aOR 1.47 [95% CI 1.33‐1.64]); to not be breastfeeding at discharge (aOR 1.77 [95% CI 1.20‐2.61]); to have their infants experience birth complications (aOR 1.24 [95% CI 1.03‐1.50]); and to be admitted to the NICU (aOR 1.63 [95% CI 1.26‐2.11]). There was a modest increase in odds of cesarean birth (aOR 1.12 [95% CI 1.00‐1.27]), and no association with preterm birth or low birthweight. The risk of adverse outcomes disappeared for medium‐high/high‐risk women referred for support. Conclusions: The PIPA tool identified one in 10 women at high psychosocial risk with increased risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Adverse outcomes were attenuated for high‐risk women who were referred for extra support, suggesting that psychosocial review and referral for high‐risk women may reduce the risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: MotherSafe is a free telephone counselling service for exposures during pregnancy and breastfeeding. As the last health professional seen prior to consumption of medicines, community pharmacists' opinions on the use of medications in pregnancy/breastfeeding is likely to be particularly sought by women presenting in pharmacies. However, a recent qualitative study revealed that community pharmacists feel unsupported in their role as medicine information providers to pregnant/breastfeeding women. Aim: The aim of the current study was to undertake a descriptive analysis of calls made by pharmacists or pharmacist‐referred patients to MotherSafe across the time period 2000–2018. Materials and Methods: A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted of call data from January 2000 to December 2018. Aggregate data were examined by type of caller, reason for call, pregnancy category and exposure type. Results: Most calls (57%) related to pregnancy or breastfeeding (39%) with calls equally distributed throughout gestation. Calls regarding potential pregnancy exposures to uncategorised drugs were the most frequent (mainly complementary medicines). Unlike pharmacists, calls from pregnant consumers referred by pharmacists were also frequently regarding category A drugs. Conclusions: This study highlights the need for reliable evidence‐based information sources regarding the use of prescribed medications, over‐the‐counter and complementary preparations during pregnancy and breastfeeding. There is a need for better education of pharmacists about appropriate information sources and the need to use evidence‐based resources other than the A‐X categories to advise their clients about the safety or otherwise of medications in pregnancy and breastfeeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]