Sociodemographic differences in symptom severity and duration among women referred to secondary care for menorrhagia in England and Wales: a cohort study from the National Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Audit

Objective: To examine symptom severity and duration at time of referral to secondary care for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) by socioeconomic deprivation, age and ethnicity. / Design: Cohort analysis of data from the National HMB Audit linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data. / Setting: English and Welsh National Health Services (secondary care): February 2011 to January 2012. / Participants: 15 325 women aged 18–60 years in England and Wales who had a new referral for HMB to a gynaecology outpatient department. / Methods: Multivariable linear regression to calculate adjusted differences in mean symptom severity and quality of life scores at first outpatient visit. Multivariable logistic regression to calculate adjusted ORs. Adjustment for body mass index, parity and comorbidities. / Primary outcome measures: Mean symptom severity score (0=best, 100=worst), mean condition-specific quality of life score (0=worst, 100=best) and symptom duration (≥1 year). / Results: Women were on average 42 years old and 12% reported minority ethnic backgrounds. Mean symptom severity and condition-specific quality of life scores were 61.8 and 34.7. Almost three-quarters of women (74%) reported having had symptoms for ≥1 year. Women from more deprived areas had more severe symptoms at their first outpatient visit (difference −6.1; 95% CI−7.2 to −4.9, between least and most deprived quintiles) and worse condition-specific quality of life (difference 6.3; 95% CI 5.1 to 7.5). Symptom severity declined with age while quality of life improved. / Conclusions: Women living in more deprived areas reported more severe HMB symptoms and poorer quality of life at the start of treatment in secondary care. Providers should examine referral practices to explore if these differences reflect women’s health-seeking behaviour or how providers decide whether or not to refer

A multi-centre quality improvement project to reduce the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Third and fourth degree perineal tears, or obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI), sustained during childbirth can result in anal incontinence and psychosocial problems which require ongoing treatment. Within the English National Health System (NHS) reported rates of OASI have gradually increased. In response, a care bundle was developed incorporating four elements: 1) antenatal information to women, 2) manual perineal protection during all vaginal births, 3) episiotomy to be performed with a 60° mediolateral angle at crowning (when clinically indicated) and 4) perineal examination (including per rectum) after childbirth. Implementation of the OASI Care Bundle is aided by a skills development module and an awareness campaign. The project is a collaboration between two national professional bodies, an NHS hospital trust and an academic institution. METHODS: Implementation of the OASI Care Bundle will be evaluated using a stepped-wedge design. From January 2017 sixteen maternity units across England, Wales and Scotland will participate in the study over a 15-month period, with sequential roll-out of the intervention in four blocks (regions) of four units. The primary clinical outcome is OASI rate. Regression analysis will adjust for differences in organisational characteristics and obstetric risk factors in women who gave birth before and after implementation of the care bundle. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with clinicians will evaluate the feasibility of integrating the care bundle into routine practice. Interviews with women will explore the acceptability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This protocol outlines the evaluation of our quality improvement project which aims to prevent OASI using a bundle of evidence-based interventions that are each widely used in practice. The OASI project aims to 1) standardise practice to prevent OASI in a way that is acceptable to clinicians and women and 2) identify the barriers and enablers associated with upscaling interventions within maternity units. If found to be effective, feasible and acceptable, the OASI Care Bundle will be shared with a range of audiences using the communication channels available to the professional bodies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OASI Project was retrospectively registered on the ISCTRN12143325 database date assigned 03/10/2017

Clinical significance of cerebral microbleeds on MRI

__Background:__ Cerebral microbleeds can confer a high risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, death and dementia, but estimated risks remain imprecise and often conflicting. We investigated the association between cerebral microbleeds presence and these outcomes in a large meta-analysis of all published cohorts including: ischemic stroke/TIA, memory clinic, “high risk” elderly populations, and healthy individuals in population-based studies. __Methods:__ Cohorts (with > 100 participants) that assessed cerebral microbleeds presence on MRI, with subsequent follow-up (≥3 months) were identified. The association between cerebral microbleeds and each of the outcomes (ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, death, and dementia) was quantified using random effects models of (a) unadjusted crude odds ratios and (b) covariate-adjusted hazard rations. Results: We identified 31 cohorts (n = 20,368): 19 ischemic stroke/TIA (n = 7672), 4 memory clinic (n = 1957), 3 high risk elderly (n = 1458) and 5 population-based cohorts (n = 11,722). Cerebral microbleeds were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (OR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.58–2.89 and adj-HR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.71–2.57), but the relative increase in future intracerebral hemorrhage risk was greater (OR: 4.65; 95% CI: 2.68–8.08 and adj-HR: 3.93; 95% CI: 2.71–5.69). Cerebral microbleeds were an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (adj-HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.24–1.48). In three population-based studies, cerebral microbleeds were independently associated with incident dementia (adj-HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.00–1.82). Results were overall consistent in analyses stratified by different populations, but with different degrees of heterogeneity. __Conclusions:__ Our meta-analysis shows that cerebral microbleeds predict an increased risk of stroke, death, and dementia and provides up-to-date effect sizes across different clinical settings. These pooled estimates can inform clinical decisions and trials, further supporting cerebral microbleeds role as biomarkers of underlying subclinical brain pathology in research and clinical settings

Obstetric interventions and pregnancy outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted maternity services worldwide and imposed restrictions on societal behaviours. This national study aimed to compare obstetric intervention and pregnancy outcome rates in England during the pandemic and corresponding pre-pandemic calendar periods, and to assess whether differences in these rates varied according to ethnic and socioeconomic background. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a national study of singleton births in English National Health Service hospitals. We compared births during the COVID-19 pandemic period (23 March 2020 to 22 February 2021) with births during the corresponding calendar period 1 year earlier. The Hospital Episode Statistics database provided administrative hospital data about maternal characteristics, obstetric inventions (induction of labour, elective or emergency cesarean section, and instrumental birth), and outcomes (stillbirth, preterm birth, small for gestational age [SGA; birthweight < 10th centile], prolonged maternal length of stay (≥3 days), and maternal 42-day readmission). Multi-level logistic regression models were used to compare intervention and outcome rates between the corresponding pre-pandemic and pandemic calendar periods and to test for interactions between pandemic period and ethnic and socioeconomic background. All models were adjusted for maternal characteristics including age, obstetric history, comorbidities, and COVID-19 status at birth. The study included 948,020 singleton births (maternal characteristics: median age 30 years, 41.6% primiparous, 8.3% with gestational diabetes, 2.4% with preeclampsia, and 1.6% with pre-existing diabetes or hypertension); 451,727 births occurred during the defined pandemic period. Maternal characteristics were similar in the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, stillbirth rates remained similar (0.36% pandemic versus 0.37% pre-pandemic, p = 0.16). Preterm birth and SGA birth rates were slightly lower during the pandemic (6.0% versus 6.1% for preterm births, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.97; 5.6% versus 5.8% for SGA births, aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.96; both p < 0.001). Slightly higher rates of obstetric intervention were observed during the pandemic (40.4% versus 39.1% for induction of labour, aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05; 13.9% versus 12.9% for elective cesarean section, aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11-1.14; 18.4% versus 17.0% for emergency cesarean section, aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08; all p < 0.001). Lower rates of prolonged maternal length of stay (16.7% versus 20.2%, aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.76-0.78, p < 0.001) and maternal readmission (3.0% versus 3.3%, aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.86-0.90, p < 0.001) were observed during the pandemic period. There was some evidence that differences in the rates of preterm birth, emergency cesarean section, and unassisted vaginal birth varied according to the mother's ethnic background but not according to her socioeconomic background. A key limitation is that multiple comparisons were made, increasing the chance of false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found very small decreases in preterm birth and SGA birth rates and very small increases in induction of labour and elective and emergency cesarean section during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some evidence of a slightly different pattern of results in women from ethnic minority backgrounds. These changes in obstetric intervention rates and pregnancy outcomes may be linked to women's behaviour, environmental exposure, changes in maternity practice, or reduced staffing levels

Iatrogenic and spontaneous preterm birth in England: a population-based cohort study

open access articleObjective: To describe the rates of and risk factors associated with iatrogenic and spontaneous preterm birth and the variation in rates between hospitals. Design: Cohort study using electronic health records. Setting: English National Health Service. Population: Singleton births between 1st April 2015 and 31st March 2017. Methods: Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (adjRR) to measure association with maternal demographic and clinical risk factors. Main outcome measures: Preterm births (<37 weeks gestation) were defined as iatrogenic or spontaneous according to mode of onset of labour. Results: 6.1% of births were preterm and of these, 52.8% were iatrogenic. The proportion of preterm births that were iatrogenic increased after 32 weeks. Both sub-groups are associated with previous preterm birth, extremes of maternal age, socio-economic deprivation and smoking. Iatrogenic preterm birth was associated with higher BMI (adjRR BMI >40 1.59 (1.50, 1.69)), and previous caesarean (adjRR 1.88 (1.83, 1.95)). Spontane-ous preterm birth was less common in women with a higher BMI (adjRR BMI>40 0.77 (0.70, 0.84)) and in women with a previous caesarean (adjRR 0.87 (0.83, 0.90)). More variation be-tween NHS hospital trusts was observed in rates of iatrogenic, compared to spontaneous, pre-term births. Conclusions: Just over half of all preterm births resulted from iatrogenic intervention. Iatro-genic births have overlapping but different patterns of maternal demographic and clinical risk factors to spontaneous preterm births. Iatrogenic and spontaneous sub-groups should therefore be measured and monitored separately, as well as in aggregate, to facilitate different preven-tion strategies. This is feasible using routinely acquired hospital data

Induction of labour at 39 weeks and adverse outcomes in low-risk pregnancies according to ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation and parity: a national cohort study in England.

open access articleBackground: Ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in obstetric outcomes are well established. However, the role of induction of labour (IOL) to reduce these inequalities is controversial, in part due to insufficient evidence. This national cohort study aimed to identify adverse perinatal outcomes associated with IOL with birth at 39 weeks of gestation (“IOL group”) compared to expectant management (“expectant management group") according to maternal characteristics in women with low-risk pregnancies. Methods and Findings: All English National Health Service (NHS) hospital births between January 2018 and March 2021 were examined. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) dataset, maternal and neonatal data (demographic, diagnoses, procedures, labour, and birth details) were linked, with neonatal mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Women with a low-risk pregnancy were identified by excluding pregnancies with pre-existing comorbidities, previous caesarean section, breech presentation, placenta previa, gestational diabetes, or a baby with congenital abnormalities. Women with premature rupture of membranes, placental abruption, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, amniotic fluid abnormalities, or antepartum stillbirth were excluded only from the IOL group. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as stillbirth, neonatal death or neonatal morbidity, the latter identified using the English composite neonatal outcome indicator (E-NAOI). Binomial regression models estimated risk differences (with 95% confidence intervals) between the IOL group and the expectant management group, adjusting for ethnicity, socioeconomic background, maternal age, parity, year of birth, and birthweight centile. Interaction tests examined risk differences according to ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and parity. Of the 1 567 004 women with singleton pregnancies, 501 072 women with low-risk pregnancies and with sufficient data quality were included in the analysis. 3.3% of births in the IOL group (1 555/47 352) and 3.6% in the expectant management group (16 525/453 720) had an adverse perinatal outcome. After adjustment, a lower risk of adverse perinatal outcomes was found in the IOL group (risk difference -0.28%; 95% confidence interval -0.43%, -0.12%; p=0.001). This risk difference varied according to socioeconomic background from 0.38% ( 0.08%, 0.83%) in the least deprived to -0.48% ( 0.76%, -0.20%) in the most deprived national quintile (p value for interaction =0.01), and by parity with risk difference of -0.54% (-0.80%, -0.27%) in nulliparous women and -0.15% (-0.35%, 0.04%) in multiparous women (p-value for interaction = 0.02). There was no statistically significant evidence that risk differences varied according to ethnicity (p=0.19). Key limitations included absence of additional confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, and the indication for induction in the HES datasets, which may mean some higher risk pregnancies were included. Conclusions: IOL with birth at 39 weeks was associated with a small reduction in the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, with 360 inductions in low-risk pregnancies needed to avoid one adverse outcome. The risk reduction was mainly present in women from more socioeconomically deprived areas and in nulliparous women. There was no significant risk difference found by ethnicity. Increased uptake of IOL at 39 weeks, especially in women from more socioeconomically deprived areas, may help reduce inequalities in adverse perinatal outcomes

Global changes in maternity care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on healthcare systems globally, with a worrying increase in adverse maternal and foetal outcomes. We aimed to assess the changes in maternity healthcare provision and healthcare-seeking by pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of the pandemic on provision of, access to and attendance at maternity services (CRD42020211753). We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from January 1st, 2020 to April 17th 2021 for controlled observational studies and research letters reporting primary data comparing maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare delivery during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Case reports and series, systematic literature reviews, and pre-print studies were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on comparable outcomes that were reported in two or more studies. Data were combined using random-effects meta-analysis, using risk ratios (RR) or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Findings: Of 4743 citations identified, 56 were included in the systematic review, and 21 in the meta-analysis. We identified a significant decrease in the number of antenatal clinic visits (IRR 0614, 95% CI 0486-0776, P<00001, I2=54.6%) and unscheduled care visits (IRR 0741, 95% CI 0602-0911, P = 00046, I2=00%) per week, and an increase in virtual or remote antenatal care (IRR 4656 95% CI 7762-2794, P<00001, I2=90.6%) and hospitalisation of unscheduled attendees (RR 1214, 95% CI 1118-1319, P<00001, I2=00%). There was a decrease in the use of GA for category 1 Caesarean sections (CS) (RR 0529, 95% CI 0407-0690, P<00001, I2=00%). There was no significant change in intrapartum epidural use (P = 00896) or the use of GA for elective CS (P = 079). Interpretation: Reduced maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic has been global, and must be considered as potentially contributing to worsening of pregnancy outcomes observed during the pandemic

Knowledge and attitudes of university students toward pandemic influenza: a cross-sectional study from Turkey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>During an influenza pandemic, higher education institutions with large populations of young adults can become serious outbreak centers. Since outbreak management is essential to disease control, we aimed to examine university students' knowledge of and attitudes toward the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 and vaccination and other preventive measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional study was conducted among 402 first year university students at Yeditepe University in Istanbul, Turkey between 1^stand 30^thof November 2009. Data regarding socio-demographic characteristics of the students, perceptions, level of knowledge and attitudes toward influenza pandemic and prevention measures were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed by the students affiliated with SANITAS, a university club of students in health related sciences.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>25.1% (101/402) of the study group perceived their personal risk of influenza as "high", while 40.5% (163/402) perceived it as "moderate", 20.6% (107/402) viewed it as "low" and 7.7% (31/402) indicated that it was "unknown". The risk perception of males was significantly lower than that of females (p = 0.004) and the risk perception among the students of health sciences was significantly lower than that of students of other sciences (p = 0.037). Within the study group, 72.1% (290/402) indicated that their main information source regarding H1N1 was the mass media. Health sciences students tended to rely more on the internet as an information source than other students (p = 0.015). The vast majority (92.8%; 373/402) of those interviewed indicated that they would not be vaccinated. The major concerns regarding vaccination had to do with the safety and side effects of the vaccine. Most of the participants (343/402, 85.3%) were carrying out one of prevention measures and the vast majority believed that hand washing, face mask and quarantina were effective measures for prevention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The participants had enough knowledge about H1N1 pandemic about the disease although there were still gaps and confusions in some areas. In the future, when planning management strategies regarding pandemics or outbreaks in higher education institutions, new strategies should be developed to promote positive health behaviour among university students compatible with the international guidelines. Main information source is mass media, so it seems that new policies must be developed to attract attention of students to use different and more scientific-based information sources.</p

COVID-19 and maternal and perinatal outcomes - Authors' reply.

Author's reply

After surgery: the effects of life-saving caesarean sections in Burkina Faso:BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

Background In African countries, caesarean sections are usually performed to save mothers and babies’ lives, sometimes in extremis and at considerable costs. Little is known about the health and lives of women once discharged after such surgery. We investigated the long-term effects of life-saving caesarean section on health, economic and social outcomes in Burkina Faso. Methods We conducted a 4 year prospective cohort study of women and their babies using mixed methods. The quantitative sample was selected in seven hospitals and included 950 women: 100 women with a caesarean section associated with near-miss complication (life-saving caesareans); 173 women with a vaginal birth associated with near-miss complication; and 677 women with uncomplicated vaginal childbirth. Structured interviews were conducted at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 3 and 4 years postpartum. These were supplemented by medical record data on delivery and physical examinations at 6 and 12 months postpartum. The lives and experiences of 21 women were documented ethnographically. Data were analysed with multivariable logistic regressions, using survival analysis and thematic analysis. Results The physical effects of life-saving caesareans appeared to be similar to women who had an uncomplicated childbirth, although 55 % of women with life-saving caesareans had another caesarean in their next pregnancy. The negative effects were generally economic, social and reproductive when compared to vaginal births, including increased debts (AOR = 3.91 (1.46–10.48) and sexual violence (AOR = 4.71 (1.04–21.3)) and lower fertility (AOR = 0.44 (0.24–0.80)) 4 years after life-saving caesareans. In the short and medium term, women with life-saving caesareans appeared to suffer increased psychological distress compared to uncomplicated births. They were more likely to use contraceptives (AOR = 5.95 (1.53–23.06); 3 months). Mortality of the index child was increased in both near-miss groups, independent of delivery mode. Ethnographic data suggest that these consequences are significant for Burkinabe women, whose well-being and social standing are mostly determined by their fertility, marriage strength and family links. Conclusions Life-saving caesareans have broad consequences beyond clinical sequelae. The recent policy to subsidise emergency obstetric care costs implemented in Burkina Faso should help avoid the majority of catastrophic costs, shown to be problematic for women undergoing emergency caesarean section