COVID-19 大流行与常规产前护理:在线就诊的使用。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Maternal and Child Health Journal Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1007/s10995-024-03904-8
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估 2020 年 COVID-19 大流行初期(CINT)与前一年(PreCINT)相比,产前就诊或筛查/检测是否减少或推迟:一项回顾性队列研究比较了纽约市七家公立医院的 CINT(n = 2,195 人)和 PreCINT(n = 2,395 人)。主要结果是产前检查的总次数。次要结果是产前检查的完成情况、标准妊娠筛查检查的时间以及新生儿不良结局:结果:CINT 患者的产前检查总次数较多(B = 1.30,95% CI:1.04,1.56,P 实践结论:尽管在 COVID-19 大流行期间亲自就诊存在困难和危险,但 COVID-19 大流行对该医院系统的门诊产前护理几乎没有产生负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Maternal and Child Health Journal
Maternal and Child Health Journal PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
271
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信