Sadia Mobeen, Joshua Fogel, Krupa Harishankar, Allan J Jacobs
{"title":"COVID-19 大流行与常规产前护理:在线就诊的使用。","authors":"Sadia Mobeen, Joshua Fogel, Krupa Harishankar, Allan J Jacobs","doi":"10.1007/s10995-024-03904-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether prenatal visits or screening/testing were fewer or occurred later during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (CINT) as compared to the prior year (PreCINT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study compared CINT (n = 2,195) to PreCINT (n = 2,395) at seven public hospitals in New York City. The primary outcome was total number of prenatal-care visits. Secondary outcomes were components of prenatal-care visits completion, timing of standard pregnancy screening tests, and adverse neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CINT patients had more total prenatal-care visits (B = 1.30, 95% CI:1.04, 1.56, p < 0.001), lower odds for initiation of prenatal care which was inadequate according to widely used criteria (OR:0.39, 95% CI:0.34, 0.45, p < 0.001), and lower gestational age at initial visit (B=-4.51, 95% CI:-5.10, -3.93, p < 0.001) than PreCINT patients. In-person visits did not differ between the two groups. PreCINT patients had no televisits, while CINT patients had a median of one televisit (Median = 1, p < 0.001). CINT patients had increased odds for group B Streptococcus screening (OR:1.27, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.48, p = 0.001), quadrivalent screening (OR:1.30, 95% CI:1.15, 1.48, p < 0.001), and anatomy sonogram (OR:2.30, 95% CI:2.04, 2.59, p < 0.001) but decreased odds for glucose challenge test screening (OR:0.81, 95% CI:0.72, 0.91, p < 0.001). Adverse neonatal outcome did not differ between CINT and PreCINT pregnancies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions for practice: </strong>Despite the difficulties and perceived dangers of in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic had little negative impact upon the outpatient prenatal care received by patients in this hospital system.</p>","PeriodicalId":48367,"journal":{"name":"Maternal and Child Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1219-1227"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The COVID-19 Pandemic and Routine Prenatal Care: Use of Online Visits.\",\"authors\":\"Sadia Mobeen, Joshua Fogel, Krupa Harishankar, Allan J Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10995-024-03904-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether prenatal visits or screening/testing were fewer or occurred later during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (CINT) as compared to the prior year (PreCINT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study compared CINT (n = 2,195) to PreCINT (n = 2,395) at seven public hospitals in New York City. The primary outcome was total number of prenatal-care visits. Secondary outcomes were components of prenatal-care visits completion, timing of standard pregnancy screening tests, and adverse neonatal outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CINT patients had more total prenatal-care visits (B = 1.30, 95% CI:1.04, 1.56, p < 0.001), lower odds for initiation of prenatal care which was inadequate according to widely used criteria (OR:0.39, 95% CI:0.34, 0.45, p < 0.001), and lower gestational age at initial visit (B=-4.51, 95% CI:-5.10, -3.93, p < 0.001) than PreCINT patients. In-person visits did not differ between the two groups. PreCINT patients had no televisits, while CINT patients had a median of one televisit (Median = 1, p < 0.001). CINT patients had increased odds for group B Streptococcus screening (OR:1.27, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.48, p = 0.001), quadrivalent screening (OR:1.30, 95% CI:1.15, 1.48, p < 0.001), and anatomy sonogram (OR:2.30, 95% CI:2.04, 2.59, p < 0.001) but decreased odds for glucose challenge test screening (OR:0.81, 95% CI:0.72, 0.91, p < 0.001). Adverse neonatal outcome did not differ between CINT and PreCINT pregnancies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions for practice: </strong>Despite the difficulties and perceived dangers of in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic had little negative impact upon the outpatient prenatal care received by patients in this hospital system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maternal and Child Health Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1219-1227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maternal and Child Health Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-024-03904-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maternal and Child Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-024-03904-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Routine Prenatal Care: Use of Online Visits.
Objective: To evaluate whether prenatal visits or screening/testing were fewer or occurred later during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (CINT) as compared to the prior year (PreCINT).
Methods: A retrospective cohort study compared CINT (n = 2,195) to PreCINT (n = 2,395) at seven public hospitals in New York City. The primary outcome was total number of prenatal-care visits. Secondary outcomes were components of prenatal-care visits completion, timing of standard pregnancy screening tests, and adverse neonatal outcomes.
Results: CINT patients had more total prenatal-care visits (B = 1.30, 95% CI:1.04, 1.56, p < 0.001), lower odds for initiation of prenatal care which was inadequate according to widely used criteria (OR:0.39, 95% CI:0.34, 0.45, p < 0.001), and lower gestational age at initial visit (B=-4.51, 95% CI:-5.10, -3.93, p < 0.001) than PreCINT patients. In-person visits did not differ between the two groups. PreCINT patients had no televisits, while CINT patients had a median of one televisit (Median = 1, p < 0.001). CINT patients had increased odds for group B Streptococcus screening (OR:1.27, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.48, p = 0.001), quadrivalent screening (OR:1.30, 95% CI:1.15, 1.48, p < 0.001), and anatomy sonogram (OR:2.30, 95% CI:2.04, 2.59, p < 0.001) but decreased odds for glucose challenge test screening (OR:0.81, 95% CI:0.72, 0.91, p < 0.001). Adverse neonatal outcome did not differ between CINT and PreCINT pregnancies.
Conclusions for practice: Despite the difficulties and perceived dangers of in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic had little negative impact upon the outpatient prenatal care received by patients in this hospital system.
期刊介绍:
Maternal and Child Health Journal is the first exclusive forum to advance the scientific and professional knowledge base of the maternal and child health (MCH) field. This bimonthly provides peer-reviewed papers addressing the following areas of MCH practice, policy, and research: MCH epidemiology, demography, and health status assessment
Innovative MCH service initiatives
Implementation of MCH programs
MCH policy analysis and advocacy
MCH professional development.
Exploring the full spectrum of the MCH field, Maternal and Child Health Journal is an important tool for practitioners as well as academics in public health, obstetrics, gynecology, prenatal medicine, pediatrics, and neonatology.
Sponsors include the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP), the Association of Teachers of Maternal and Child Health (ATMCH), and CityMatCH.