Search

ObjectiveTo compare neonatal mortality associated with six novel vulnerable newborn types in 125.5 million live births across 15 countries, 2000–2020.DesignPopulation-based, multi-country study.SettingNational data systems in 15 middle- and high-income countries.MethodsWe used individual-level data sets identified for the Vulnerable Newborn Measurement Collaboration. We examined the contribution to neonatal mortality of six newborn types combining gestational age (preterm [PT] versus term [T]) and size-for-gestational age (small [SGA], 90th centile) according to INTERGROWTH-21st newborn standards. Newborn babies with PT or SGA were defined as small and T + LGA was considered as large. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and population attributable risks (PAR%) for the six newborn types.Main outcome measuresMortality of six newborn types.ResultsOf 125.5 million live births analysed, risk ratios were highest among PT + SGA (median 67.2, interquartile range [IQR] 45.6–73.9), PT + AGA (median 34.3, IQR 23.9–37.5) and PT + LGA (median 28.3, IQR 18.4–32.3). At the population level, PT + AGA was the greatest contributor to newborn mortality (median PAR% 53.7, IQR 44.5–54.9). Mortality risk was highest among newborns born before 28 weeks (median RR 279.5, IQR 234.2–388.5) compared with babies born between 37 and 42 completed weeks or with a birthweight less than 1000 g (median RR 282.8, IQR 194.7–342.8) compared with those between 2500 g and 4000 g as a reference group.ConclusionPreterm newborn types were the most vulnerable, and associated with the highest mortality, particularly with co-existence of preterm and SGA. As PT + AGA is more prevalent, it is responsible for the greatest burden of neonatal deaths at population level.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care. Results: The ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured. Conclusions: The COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on women’s birth experiences. To date, there are no studies that use both quantitative and qualitative data to compare women’s birth experiences before and during the pandemic, across more than one country. Aim To examine women’s birth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the experiences of women who gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) or the Netherlands (NL) either before or during the pandemic. Method This study is based on analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from the online Babies Born Better survey. Responses recorded by women giving birth in the UK and the NL between June and December 2020 have been used, encompassing women who gave birth between 2017 and 2020. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and chi-squared tests were performed to compare women who gave birth pre- versus during pandemic and separately by country. Qualitative data was analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Findings Respondents in both the UK and the NL who gave birth during the pandemic were as likely, or, if they had a self-reported above average standard of life, more likely to rate their labour and birth experience positively when compared to women who gave birth pre-pandemic. This was despite the fact that those labouring in the pandemic reported a lack of support and limits placed on freedom of choice. Two potential explanatory themes were identified in the qualitative data: respondents had lower expectations of care during the pandemic, and they appreciated the efforts of staff to give individualised care, despite the rules. Conclusion Our study implies that many women labouring during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced restrictions, but their experience was mitigated by staff actions. However, personalised care should not be maintained by the good will of care providers, but should be a priority in maternity care policy to benefit all service users equitably.

Administration-to-birth intervals of antenatal corticosteroids (ANS) vary. The significance of this variation is unclear. Specifically, to our knowledge, the shortest effective administration-to-birth interval is unknown. Objective:To explore the associations between ANS administration-to-birth interval and survival and morbidity among very preterm infants. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Effective Perinatal Intensive Care in Europe (EPICE) study, a population-based prospective cohort study, gathered data from 19 regions in 11 European countries in 2011 and 2012 on 4594 singleton infants with gestational ages between 24 and 31 weeks, without severe anomalies and unexposed to repeated courses of ANS. Data were analyzed November 2016. Exposure: Time from first injection of ANS to delivery in hours and days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three outcomes were studied: in-hospital mortality; a composite of mortality or severe neonatal morbidity, defined as an intraventricular hemorrhage grade of 3 or greater, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis, or stage 3 or greater retinopathy of prematurity; and severe neonatal brain injury, defined as an intraventricular hemorrhage grade of 3 or greater or cystic periventricular leukomalacia. Results: Of the 4594 infants included in the cohort, 2496 infants (54.3%) were boys, and the mean (SD) gestational age was 28.5 (2.2) weeks and mean (SD) birth weight was 1213 (400) g. Mortality for the 662 infants (14.4%) unexposed to ANS was 20.6% (136 of 661). Administration of ANS was associated with an immediate and rapid decline in mortality, reaching a plateau with more than 50% risk reduction after an administration-to-birth interval of 18 to 36 hours. A similar pattern for timing was seen for the composite mortality or morbidity outcome, whereas a significant risk reduction of severe neonatal brain injury was associated with longer administration-to-birth intervals (greater than 48 hours). For all outcomes, the risk reduction associated with ANS was transient, with increasing mortality and risk for severe neonatal brain injury associated with administration-to-birth intervals exceeding 1 week. Under the assumption of a causal relationship between timing of ANS and mortality, a simulation of ANS administered 3 hours before delivery to infants who did not receive ANS showed that their estimated decline in mortality would be 26%. Conclusions and Relevance:Antenatal corticosteroids may be effective even if given only hours before delivery. Therefore, the infants of pregnant women at risk of imminent preterm delivery may benefit from its use. The research received funding from grant agreement 259882 from the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007-2013). Additional funding in France was provided by the French Institute of Public Health Research/Institute of Public Health and its partners, including the French Health Ministry, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research, the National Institute of Cancer, and the National Solidarity Fund for Autonomy, by grant ANR-11-EQPX-0038 from the National Research Agency through the French Equipex Program of Investments in the Future, and by the PremUp Foundation; in Poland, by 2012-2015 allocation of funds for international projects from the Polish Ministry of Science and HigherEducation; and in Sweden, by regional agreementon medical training and clinical research betweenStockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutetand by the Department of Neonat al Medicine at theKarolinska University Hospital.

Objective To investigate the variation in severe neonatal morbidity among very preterm (VPT) infants across European regions and whether morbidity rates are higher in regions with low compared with high mortality rates. Design Area-based cohort study of all births before 32 weeks of gestational age. Setting 16 regions in 11 European countries in 2011/2012. Patients Survivors to discharge from neonatal care (n=6422). Main outcome measures Severe neonatal morbidity was defined as intraventricular haemorrhage grades III and IV, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis and retinopathy of prematurity grades >= 3. A secondary outcome included severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), data available in 14 regions. Common definitions for neonatal morbidities were established before data abstraction from medical records. Regional severe neonatal morbidity rates were correlated with regional in-hospital mortality rates for live births after adjustment on maternal and neonatal characteristics. Results 10.6% of survivors had a severe neonatal morbidity without severe BPD (regional range 6.4%23.5%) and 13.8% including severe BPD (regional range 10.0%-23.5%). Adjusted inhospital mortality was 13.7% (regional range 8.4%-18.8%). Differences between regions remained significant after consideration of maternal and neonatal characteristics (P< 0.001) and severe neonatal morbidity rates were not correlated with mortality rates (P= 0.50). Conclusion Severe neonatal morbidity rates for VPT survivors varied widely across European regions and were independent of mortality rates.

International audience; OBJECTIVE: To investigate the variation in severe neonatal morbidity among very preterm (VPT) infants across European regions and whether morbidity rates are higher in regions with low compared with high mortality rates.METHODS: Area-based cohort study of all births before 32 weeks of gestational age.METHODS: 16 regions in 11 European countries in 2011/2012.METHODS: Survivors to discharge from neonatal care (n=6422).METHODS: Severe neonatal morbidity was defined as intraventricular haemorrhage grades III and IV, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis and retinopathy of prematurity grades ≥3. A secondary outcome included severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), data available in 14 regions. Common definitions for neonatal morbidities were established before data abstraction from medical records. Regional severe neonatal morbidity rates were correlated with regional in-hospital mortality rates for live births after adjustment on maternal and neonatal characteristics.RESULTS: 10.6% of survivors had a severe neonatal morbidity without severe BPD (regional range 6.4%-23.5%) and 13.8% including severe BPD (regional range 10.0%-23.5%). Adjusted inhospital mortality was 13.7% (regional range 8.4%-18.8%). Differences between regions remained significant after consideration of maternal and neonatal characteristics (P