Search

BackgroundSignificant adjustments to the provision of maternity care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the direct impacts of COVID-19 can compromise the quality of maternal and newborn care.AimTo explore how the COVID-19 pandemic affected frontline health workers’ ability to provide respectful maternity care globally.MethodsWe conducted a global online survey of health workers to assess the provision of maternal and newborn healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected quantitative and qualitative data between July and December 2020 and conducted a qualitative content analysis to explore open-ended responses.FindingsHealth workers (n=1,127) from 71 countries participated; and 120 participants from 33 countries provided qualitative data. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the provision of respectful maternity care in multiple ways. Six central themes were identified: less family involvement, reduced emotional and physical support for women, compromised standards of care, increased exposure to medically unjustified caesarean section, and staff overwhelmed by rapidly changing guidelines and enhanced infection prevention measures. Further, respectful care provided to women and newborns with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection was severely affected due to health workers’ fear of getting infected and measures taken to minimise COVID-19 transmission.DiscussionMultidimensional and contextually-adapted actions are urgently needed to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision and continued promotion of respectful maternity care globally in the long-term.ConclusionsThe measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the quality of care provided to women during labour and childbirth generally, and respectful maternity care specifically.

In this article, we describe the results of a rapid qualitative study conducted between May 19 and June 25, 2020 on the work experience of midwives during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brussels and Wallonia (Belgium). Using semi-structured interviews conducted with fifteen midwives working in hospitals or practicing privately, we investigated the impact of the first COVID-19 wave on their work experience, the woman-midwife relationship, and midwife-perceived changes in quality of care. Findings include high levels of stress and insecurity related to the lack of resources and personal protective equipment, feelings of distrust from midwives towards the Belgian State and public health authorities, as well as structural and organizational challenges within maternity wards which negatively affected quality of care. Moreover, based on the midwives’ experiences, we demonstrate the need to recognise the views of all stakeholders involved in maternal and newborn care provision, and share five essential lessons learned from this study: 1) it is crucial to acknowledge the central role of midwives for maintaining maternal and newborn care amidst the pandemic and beyond; 2) creating unified national guidelines could support ensuring best practice; 3) efforts must be put in place to diminish the climate of mistrust towards health authorities and to repair the relationship between midwives and decision-makers which was damaged during the pandemic; 4) caring for front-line healthcare workers’ mental health is critical, and 5) quality of maternal care can be improved, even in the midst of a pandemic, through team effort and creative solutions tailored to the needs and demands of each setting.

ObjectiveTo examine trends and variations of caesarean section by economic status and type of healthcare facility in Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).MethodsSecondary data analysis of nationally representative household surveys conducted between 2008–2020 across nine Arab countries in the MENA region. The study population was women aged 15–49 years with a live birth in the two years preceding the survey. Temporal changes in the proportion of deliveries by caesarean section in each country were calculated using generalised linear models and presented as risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Caesarean section was disaggregated by household wealth index and type of healthcare facility.ResultsUse of caesarean section ranged from 57.3% (95%CI:55.6–59.1%) in Egypt to 5.7% of births (95%CI:4.9–6.6%) in Yemen. Overall, the use of caesarean section has increased across the MENA region, except in Jordan, where there was no evidence of change (RD -2.3 (95%CI: -6.0 ‒1.4)). Across most countries, caesarean section use was highest in the richest quintile compared to the poorest quintile, for example, 42.8% (95%CI:38.0–47.6%) vs. 22.6% (95%CI:19.6–25.9%) in Iraq, respectively. Proportion of caesarean section was higher in private sector facilities compared to public sector: 21.8% (95%CI:18.2–25.9%) vs. 15.7% (95%CI:13.3–18.4%) in Yemen, respectively.ConclusionVariations in caesarean section exist within and between Arab countries, and it was more commonly used amongst the richest quintiles and in private healthcare facilities. The private sector has a prominent role in observed trends. Urgent policies and interventions are required to address non-medically indicated intervention.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rapid and wide implementation of telemedicine for provision of maternal and newborn health care worldwide. Studies conducted before the pandemic, mainly deriving from high-income countries, showed telemedicine was a safe and cost-effective tool for delivering healthcare under certain conditions. The objective of this study was to document the experiences of healthcare professionals globally with the provision of telemedicine for maternal and newborn healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe analysed responses received to the second round of a global, online survey of maternal and newborn health professionals, disseminated through professional networks and social media in 11 languages. Data were collected between July 5, 2020 and September 10, 2020. The questionnaire included questions regarding background, preparedness for and response to COVID-19 and experiences with providing telemedicine during the pandemic. Descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis were used concurrently to analyse responses, disaggregated by country income level.ResultsResponses from 1,060 maternal and newborn health professional were analysed. Among the sample, 58% reported using telemedicine, with the lowest proportion reported by professionals working in low-income countries (24%). Two fifths of telemedicine users reported not receiving guidelines on the provision of care through technology. Key practices along the continuum of maternal and newborn healthcare provided through telemedicine included online group birth preparedness classes, antenatal and postnatal care by video/phone, setting up a COVID-19 helpline at maternity wards, and online psychosocial counselling. Challenges reported technological barriers, lack of technological literacy, financial and language barriers, lack of nonverbal feedback, and distrust from patients. Maternal and newborn health providers considered telemedicine to be an important alternative to in-person consultations to maintain care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they also emphasized the lower quality of care and risk of increasing the already existing inequalities in access to healthcare.ConclusionsTelemedicine has been applied globally to address the disruptions of care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some crucial aspects of maternal and newborn healthcare seem difficult to deliver by telemedicine. Pitfalls of health care provision by telemedicine include exacerbated inequalities in access to care, patient-provider communication problems, and a financial burden for certain healthcare workers and women. More research regarding the effectiveness, efficacy, and quality of telemedicine for maternal health care in different contexts is highly needed before considering long-term adaptations in provision of care away from face to face interactions. Clear guidelines for care provision and approaches to minimising socio-economic and technological inequalities in access to care are urgently needed.Summary boxWhat is already known?Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare services by healthcare professionals from distance through using information and communication technologies for the exchange of valid and correct information.Telemedicine for maternal and newborn health can safely be used to deliver certain components of care in highly controlled settings where the technology is available and accessible to patientsTelemedicine has been applied rapidly and on a wide scale during the COVID-19 pandemic to replace face to face visits along the continuum of maternal and newborn health care.What are the new findings?Maternal and newborn healthcare providers globally considered telemedicine of benefit during the pandemic and applied it on a wide scale for different aspects of maternal and newborn healthcare.The rapid adaptation to provision of care via telemedicine was not optimally supported by guidelines, training for health providers, adequate equipment, reimbursement for cost of connectivity and insurance payments for care provided remotely.Healthcare providers reported not being able to reach a substantial group of families by telemedicine and encountered different barriers in providing high quality maternity care by telemedicine due to challenges present worldwide, but more prominent in low- and middle-income countries.What do the new findings imply?Pre-existing inequalities in terms of access to high quality care might have increased by the large scale and rapid implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in different settings.Access to telemedicine for women was hampered by various factors such as internet connection problems, lack of the necessary equipment, digital illiteracy and distrust.In-depth research is needed to formalise evidence-based guidelines for the implementation of telemedicine along the continuum of maternal and newborn care as lessons learned for building back beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and also for future emergency preparedness.

Beyond the direct effects on women and newborns,1 the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in large, multidimensional and ongoing negative indirect effects on the provision of sexual, reproductive, mater...

ObjectiveTo prospectively document experiences of frontline maternal and newborn healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional study via an online survey disseminated through professional networks and social media in 12 languages. We analysed responses using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis disaggregating by low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs).Setting81 countries, between March 24 and April 10, 2020.Participants714 maternal and newborn healthcare providers.Main outcome measuresPreparedness for and response to COVID-19, experiences of health workers providing care to women and newborns, and adaptations to 17 outpatient and inpatient care processes during the pandemic.ResultsOnly one third of respondents received training on COVID-19 from their health facility and nearly all searched for information themselves. Half of respondents in LMICs received updated guidelines for care provision compared with 82% in HICs. Overall, only 47% of participants in LMICs, and 69% in HICs felt mostly or completely knowledgeable in how to care for COVID-19 maternity patients. Facility-level responses to COVID-19 (signage, screening, testing, and isolation rooms) were more common in HICs than LMICs. Globally, 90% of respondents reported somewhat or substantially higher levels of stress. There was a widespread perception of reduced use of routine maternity care services, and of modification in care processes, some of which were not evidence-based.ConclusionsSubstantial knowledge gaps exist in guidance on management of maternity cases with or without COVID-19. Formal information sharing channels for providers must be established and mental health support provided. Surveys of maternity care providers can help track the situation, capture innovations, and support rapid development of effective responses.Key MessagesWhat is already knownIn addition to lack of healthcare worker protection, staffing shortages, heightened risk of nosocomial transmission and decreased healthcare use described in previous infectious disease outbreaks, maternal and newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been affected by large-scale lockdowns/curfews.The two studies assessing the indirect effects of COVID-19 on maternal and child health have used models to estimate mortality impacts.Experiences of frontline health professionals providing maternal and newborn care during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been empirically documented to date.What this study addsRespondents in high-income countries more commonly reported available/updated guidelines, access to COVID-19 testing, and dedicated isolation rooms for confirmed/suspected COVID-19 maternity patients.Levels of stress increased among health professionals globally, including due to changed working hours, difficulties in reaching health facilities, and staff shortages.Healthcare providers were worried about the impact of rapidly changing care practices on health outcomes: reduced access to antenatal care, fewer outpatient visits, shorter length-of-stay in facilities after birth, banning birth companions, separating newborns from COVID-19 positive mothers, and postponing routine immunisations.COVID-19 illustrates the susceptibility of maternity care services to emergencies, including by reversing hard-won gains in healthcare utilisation and use of evidence-based practices. These rapid findings can inform countries of the main issues emerging and help develop effective responses.

Background Women and children suffer disproportionately in armed-conflicts. Since 2011, the protracted Syrian crisis has fragmented the pre-existing healthcare system. Despite the massive health needs of women and children, the delivery of key reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition (RMNCAH&N) interventions, and its underlying factors are not well-understood in Syria. Our objective was to document intervention coverage indicators and their implementation challenges inside Syria during conflict. Methods We conducted 1) a desk review to extract RMNCAH&N intervention coverage indicators inside Syria during the conflict; and 2) qualitative interviews with decision makers and health program implementers to explore reasons behind provision/non-provision of RMNCAH&N interventions, and the rationale informing decisions, priorities, collaborations and implementation. We attempt to validate findings by triangulating data from both sources. Results Key findings showed that humanitarian organisations operating in Syria adopted a complex multi-hub structure, and some resorted to remote management to improve accessibility to certain geographic areas. The emergency response prioritised trauma care and infectious disease control. Yet, with time, humanitarian organisations successfully advocated for prioritising maternal and child health and nutrition interventions given evident needs. The volatile security context had implications on populations’ healthcare seeking behaviors, such as women reportedly preferring home births, or requesting Caesarean-sections to reduce insecurity risks. Additional findings were glaring data gaps and geographic variations in the availability of data on RMNCAH&N indicators. Adaptations of the humanitarian response included task-shifting to overcome shortage in skilled healthcare workers following their exodus, outreach activities to enhance access to RMNCAH&N services, and operating in ‘underground’ facilities to avoid risk of attacks. Conclusion The case of Syria provides a unique perspective on creative ways of managing the humanitarian response and delivering RMNCAH&N interventions, mainly in the multi-hub structure and use of remote management, despite encountered challenges. The scarcity of RMNCAH&N data is a tremendous challenge for both researchers and implementing agencies, as it limits accountability and monitoring, thus hindering the evaluation of delivered interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Children's food choices are influenced by school, family and community environments; but obesogenic exposures in these environments are difficult to measure. Innovative tools such as wearable cameras are being developed to quantify children's exposures to such factors. We aimed to assess the features required and acceptability of these tools in two urban contexts going through a rapid nutrition transition: Beirut (Lebanon) and Tunis (Tunisia). METHODS: A user-centered design approach engaged schoolchildren (aged 10–12y), parents and school staff in twelve design workshops in Beirut and Tunis. These included discussions, mind-mapping and storyboarding to identify challenges associated with wearable cameras and to inform the design of a data-collection model that meets the cultural and ethical requirements specified. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically along with the mind-maps and storyboards. RESULTS: Commonly reported challenges were: invading children's and third-parties’ privacy; distracting school-students; and inaccurate data due to behavioral changes. Safety issues related to photo-capture in public (third-party questioning/aggression) only emerged in Tunisia since Lebanese parents stated that children were rarely unsupervised in public. To overcome these challenges, participants suggested wearable cameras capturing exposures automatically, for a short period. Two rounds of image-filtering were proposed to safeguard privacy: automated selection of pictures with food-related exposures, followed by parental manual screening. To protect anonymity, participants suggested automated blurring of faces. CONCLUSIONS: Objectively measuring children's environments with wearable cameras was deemed acceptable in these two contexts, with substantial privacy and data protection guidelines. The suggested model has been developed and will be tested in future research. FUNDING SOURCES: International Development Research Center (IDRC).

Background Public health journals need to have clear policies for reporting the funding of studies and authors’ personal financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures. This study aims to assess the policies of public health journals on reporting of study funding and the disclosure of authors’ COIs. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of “Public, Environmental & Occupational Health” journals. Teams of two researchers abstracted data in duplicate and independently using REDCap software. Results Of 173 public health journals, 155 (90%) had a policy for reporting study funding information. Out of these, a majority did not require reporting of the phase of the study for which funding was received (88%), nor the types of funding sources (87%). Of the 173 journals, 163 (94%) had a policy requiring disclosure of authors’ COI. However, the majority of these journals did not require financial conflicts of interest disclosures relating to institutions (75%) nor to the author’s family members (90%) while 56% required the disclosure of at least one form of non-financial COI. Conclusions The policies of the majority of public health journals do not require the reporting of important details such as the role of the funder, and non-financial COI. Journals and publishers should consider revising their editorial policies to ensure complete and transparent reporting of funding and COI.

Background A transparent and explicit reporting on authors' contributions to the development of clinical practice guidelines and on panelists' characteristics is essential for their credibility and trustworthiness. We did not find published studies on authorship or panel involvement in clinical practice guidelines. Objective To describe the approach to authorship in reports of clinical practice guidelines, and the characteristics of individual authors. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of guidelines listed in the National Guideline Clearing House (NGC) in 2016. We abstracted data on the general characteristics of the guidelines, report approach to authorship, and individual authors characteristics. Data abstraction was in duplicate and independent manner using standardised form. Data analyses were both descriptive and regression analyses. Results Overall, 139 eligible guidelines with published papers were identified. Of these, 48 (35%) included a group authorship statement in the author byline. A third of these guidelines (n = 45; 32%) reported on authors' contributions, while about half of the guidelines (n = 74; 53%) reported who of the authors served as panel members. Around one-fifth of the guidelines (n = 30; 22%) reported group membership (eg, content expert, patient representative) for at least 1 author. Less than one-seventh of the eligible guidelines indicated who selected the panel members (n = 18; 13%), reported the types of panel members (n = 18; 13%) or the selection criteria (n = 12; 9%). Higher journal impact factor was associated with both "reporting of the author contributions" (OR = 1.07) and "the inclusion of a panel membership section in the guideline report" (OR = 1.21). Conclusion Low percentages of clinical practice guidelines report information on important aspects of authorship and characteristics of individual authors. Better reporting of some of these criteria was associated with journal impact factor.