The fathers of infants born to adolescent mothers: a comparison with non-parenting male peers and adolescent mothers

This study examined social-emotional variables and views of parenting of fathers of infants born to adolescent mothers. Participants were a convenience sample of 15 fathers of infants born to adolescent mothers, 15 age-matched non-parenting male peers, and 15 adolescent mothers. Data collected included demographic information, self-esteem, depressive symptoms, social support, parenting satisfaction, and general life satisfaction. Additionally, a semi-structured interview that focused on the subjects\u27 views about parenting was conducted. Results showed significant differences between fathers and non-fathers and between fathers and adolescent mothers. Fathers reported less support from friends and the community, lower general life satisfaction, and lower self-esteem than the non-parenting male peers. Fathers reported lower general life satisfaction than the adolescent mothers. Results from interviews indicated that the majority of the fathers and non-fathers view parenthood as increased responsibility whereas the adolescent mothers reported that parenthood made them more mature and kept them out of trouble. Overall, the majority of fathers reported enjoying their children though results suggested that their level of emotional well-being is lower than that of the non-parenting male peers

Relationship between the adolescent father and his infant compared with those for the non-adolescent father and the adolescent mother

Family Relations and Child Developmen

The impact of in utero transfusions on perinatal outcomes in patients with alpha thalassemia major: the UCSF registry.

Alpha thalassemia major (ATM) is a hemoglobinopathy that usually results in perinatal demise if in utero transfusions (IUTs) are not performed. We established an international registry (NCT04872179) to evaluate the impact of IUTs on survival to discharge (primary outcome) as well as perinatal and neurodevelopmental secondary outcomes. Forty-nine patients were diagnosed prenatally, 11 were diagnosed postnatally, and all 11 spontaneous survivor genotypes had preserved embryonic zeta-globin levels. We compared 3 groups of patients; group 1, prenatally diagnosed and alive at hospital discharge (n = 14), group 2, prenatally diagnosed and deceased perinatally (n = 5), and group 3, postnatally diagnosed and alive at hospital discharge (n = 11). Group 1 had better outcomes than groups 2 and 3 in terms of the resolution of hydrops, delivery closer to term, shorter hospitalizations, and more frequent average or greater neurodevelopmental outcomes. Earlier IUT initiation was correlated with higher neurodevelopmental (Vineland-3) scores (r = -0.72, P = .02). Preterm delivery after IUT was seen in 3/16 (19%) patients who continued their pregnancy. When we combined our data with those from 2 published series, patients who received ≥2 IUTs had better outcomes than those with 0 to 1 IUT, including resolution of hydrops, delivery at ≥34 weeks gestation, and 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration scores ≥7. Neurodevelopmental assessments were normal in 17/18 of the ≥2 IUT vs 5/13 of the 0 to 1 IUT group (OR 2.74; P = .01). Thus, fetal transfusions enable the survival of patients with ATM and normal neurodevelopment, even in those patients presenting with hydrops. Nondirective prenatal counseling for expectant parents should include the option of IUTs

Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home-range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied block cross-validation to quantify bias in empirical home-range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health