Quality of facility-based maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic: online survey investigating maternal perspectives in 12 countries of the WHO European Region

Background Multi-country studies assessing the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by WHO Standards, are lacking. Methods Women who gave birth in 12 countries of the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020 - March 15, 2021 answered an online questionnaire, including 40 WHO Standard-based Quality Measures. Findings 21,027 mothers were included in the analysis. Among those who experienced labour (N=18,063), 41·8% (26·1%- 63·5%) experienced difficulties in accessing antenatal care, 62% (12·6%-99·0%) were not allowed a companion of choice, 31·1% (16·5%-56·9%) received inadequate breastfeeding support, 34·4% (5·2%-64·8%) reported that health workers were not always using protective personal equipment, and 31·8% (17·8%-53·1%) rated the health workers’ number as “insufficient”. Episiotomy was performed in 20·1% (6·1%-66·0%) of spontaneous vaginal births and fundal pressure applied in 41·2% (11·5% -100%) of instrumental vaginal births. In addition, 23·9% women felt they were not treated with dignity (12·8%-59·8%), 12·5% (7·0%-23·4%) suffered abuse, and 2·4% (0·1%-26·2%) made informal payments. Most findings were significantly worse among women with prelabour caesarean birth (N=2,964). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant differences among countries, with Croatia, Romania, Serbia showing significant lower QMNC Indexes and Luxemburg showing a significantly higher QMNC Index than the total sample. Younger women and those with operative births also reported significantly lower QMNC Indexes. Interpretation Mothers reports revealed large inequities in QMNC across countries of the WHO European Region. Quality improvement initiatives to reduce these inequities and promote evidence-based, patient-centred respectful care for all mothers and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond are urgently needed. Funding The study was financially supported by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336This research was funded by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste Italy

Recognition of COVID-19 with occupational origin: a comparison between European countries

Objectives This study aims to present an overview of the formal recognition of COVID-19 as occupational disease (OD) or injury (OI) across Europe. Methods A COVID-19 questionnaire was designed by a task group within COST-funded OMEGA-NET and sent to occupational health experts of 37 countries in WHO European region, with a last update in April 2022. Results The questionnaire was filled out by experts from 35 countries. There are large differences between national systems regarding the recognition of OD and OI: 40% of countries have a list system, 57% a mixed system and one country an open system. In most countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as an OD (57%). In four countries, COVID-19 can be recognised as OI (11%) and in seven countries as either OD or OI (20%). In two countries, there is no recognition possible to date. Thirty-two countries (91%) recognise COVID-19 as OD/OI among healthcare workers. Working in certain jobs is considered proof of occupational exposure in 25 countries, contact with a colleague with confirmed infection in 19 countries, and contact with clients with confirmed infection in 21 countries. In most countries (57%), a positive PCR test is considered proof of disease. The three most common compensation benefits for COVID-19 as OI/OD are disability pension, treatment and rehabilitation. Long COVID is included in 26 countries. Conclusions COVID-19 can be recognised as OD or OI in 94% of the European countries completing this survey, across different social security and embedded occupational health systems.This publication is based on work from COST Action CA16216 (OMEGA-NET), supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)

Regional differences in the quality of maternal and neonatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal: Results from the IMAgiNE EURO study

Objective: To compare women's perspectives on the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth across Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2 (NUTS-II) regions in Portugal during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Women participating in the cross-sectional IMAgiNE EURO study who gave birth in Portugal from March 1, 2020, to October 28, 2021, completed a structured questionnaire with 40 key WHO standards-based quality measures. Four domains of QMNC were assessed: (1) provision of care; (2) experience of care; (3) availability of human and physical resources; and (4) reorganizational changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Frequencies for each quality measure within each QMNC domain were computed overall and by region. Results: Out of 1845 participants, one-third (33.7%) had a cesarean. Examples of high-quality care included: low frequencies of lack of early breastfeeding and rooming-in (8.0% and 7.7%, respectively) and informal payment (0.7%); adequate staff professionalism (94.6%); adequate room comfort and equipment (95.2%). However, substandard practices with large heterogeneity across regions were also reported. Among women who experienced labor, the percentage of instrumental vaginal births ranged from 22.3% in the Algarve to 33.5% in Center; among these, fundal pressure ranged from 34.8% in Lisbon to 66.7% in Center. Episiotomy was performed in 39.3% of noninstrumental vaginal births with variations between 31.8% in the North to 59.8% in Center. One in four women reported inadequate breastfeeding support (26.1%, ranging from 19.4% in Algarve to 31.5% in Lisbon). One in five reported no exclusive breastfeeding at discharge (22.1%; 19.5% in Lisbon to 28.2% in Algarve). Conclusion: Urgent actions are needed to harmonize QMNC and reduce inequities across regions in Portugal. © 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.Funding text 1: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome - Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste - Italy. This study was supported by Portuguese fundings through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, in the scope of the projects EPIUnit - UIDB/04750/2020, ITR - LA/P/0064/2020, and HEILab - UIDB/05380/2020, and by the European Social Fund (ESF) and FCT (SFRH/BPD/117597/2016; RC postdoctoral fellowship). We are grateful to the women who dedicated their time to complete the survey, to Associação Portuguesa pelos Direitos da Mulher na Gravidez e Parto (APDMGP) for support with survey dissemination and to nurse Louise Semião for assistance provided in back-translation of the questionnaires. Special thanks to the IMAgiNE EURO study group for their contribution to the development of this project and support for this manuscript.; Funding text 2: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome ‐ Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste ‐ Italy. This study was supported by Portuguese fundings through FCT ‐ Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, in the scope of the projects EPIUnit ‐ UIDB/04750/2020, ITR ‐ LA/P/0064/2020, and HEILab ‐ UIDB/05380/2020, and by the European Social Fund (ESF) and FCT (SFRH/BPD/117597/2016; RC postdoctoral fellowship). We are grateful to the women who dedicated their time to complete the survey, to Associação Portuguesa pelos Direitos da Mulher na Gravidez e Parto (APDMGP) for support with survey dissemination and to nurse Louise Semião for assistance provided in back‐translation of the questionnaires. Special thanks to the IMAgiNE EURO study group for their contribution to the development of this project and support for this manuscript. ; Funding text 3: IMAgiNE EURO project was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome ‐ Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste ‐ Italy. This study was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia; European Social Fund (ESF) Funding informatio

Collaborative update of a rule-based expert system for HIV-1 genotypic resistance test interpretation

Introduction HIV-1 genotypic resistance test (GRT) interpretation systems (IS) require updates as new studies on HIV-1 drug resistance are published and as treatment guidelines evolve. Methods An expert panel was created to provide recommendations for the update of the Stanford HIV Drug Resistance Database (HIVDB) GRT-IS. The panel was polled on the ARVs to be included in a GRT report, and the drug-resistance interpretations associated with 160 drug-resistance mutation (DRM) pattern-ARV combinations. The DRM pattern-ARV combinations included 52 nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (13 patterns x 4 NRTIs), 27 nonnucleoside RT inhibitor (NNRTI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (9 patterns x 3 NNRTIs), 39 protease inhibitor (PI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (13 patterns x 3 PIs) and 42 integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) DRM pattern-ARV combinations (14 patterns x 3 INSTIs). Results There was universal agreement that a GRT report should include the NRTIs lamivudine, abacavir, zidovudine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; the NNRTIs efavirenz, etravirine, nevirapine, and rilpivirine; the PIs atazanavir/r, darunavir/r, and lopinavir/r (with ª/rº indicating pharmacological boosting with ritonavir or cobicistat); and the INSTIs dolutegravir, elvitegravir, and raltegravir. There was a range of opinion as to whether the NRTIs stavudine and didanosine and the PIs nelfinavir, indinavir/r, saquinavir/r, fosamprenavir/ r, and tipranavir/r should be included. The expert panel members provided highly concordant DRM pattern-ARV interpretations with only 6% of NRTI, 6% of NNRTI, 5% of PI, and 3% of INSTI individual expert interpretations differing from the expert panel median by more than one resistance level. The expert panel median differed from the HIVDB 7.0 GRTIS for 20 (12.5%) of the 160 DRM pattern-ARV combinations including 12 NRTI, two NNRTI, and six INSTI pattern-ARV combinations. Eighteen of these differences were updated in HIVDB 8.1 GRT-IS to reflect the expert panel median. Additionally, HIVDB users are now provided with the option to exclude those ARVs not considered to be universally required. Conclusions The HIVDB GRT-IS was updated through a collaborative process to reflect changes in HIV drug resistance knowledge, treatment guidelines, and expert opinion. Such a process broadens consensus among experts and identifies areas requiring further study.</p