Members of the transgender community have identified healthcare access barriers, yet a corresponding inquiry into healthcare provider perspectives has lagged. Our aim was to examine physician ...perceptions of barriers to healthcare provision for transgender patients.
This was a qualitative study with physician participants from Ontario, Canada. Semi-structured interviews were used to capture a progression of ideas related to barriers faced by physicians when caring for trans patients. Qualitative data were then transcribed verbatim and analysed with an emergent grounded theory approach.
A total of thirteen (13) physician participants were interviewed. Analysis revealed healthcare barriers that grouped into five themes: Accessing resources, medical knowledge deficits, ethics of transition-related medical care, diagnosing vs. pathologising trans patients, and health system determinants. A centralising theme of "not knowing where to go or who to talk to" was also identified.
The findings of this study show that physicians perceive barriers to the care of trans patients, and that these barriers are multifactorial. Access barriers impede physicians when referring patients to specialists or searching for reliable treatment information. Clinical management of trans patients is complicated by a lack of knowledge, and by ethical considerations regarding treatments--which can be unfamiliar or challenging to physicians. The disciplinary division of responsibilities within medicine further complicates care; few practitioners identify trans healthcare as an interest area, and there is a tendency to overemphasise trans status in mental health evaluations. Failure to recognise and accommodate trans patients within sex-segregated healthcare systems leads to deficient health policy. The findings of this study suggest potential solutions to trans healthcare barriers at the informational level--with increased awareness of clinical guidelines and by including trans health issues in medical education-and at the institutional level, with support for both trans-focused and trans-friendly primary care models.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Introduction
Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic have ...surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta‐analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre‐pandemic periods.
Material and methods
We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and reference lists of articles published up until November 20, 2021, and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID‐19 pandemic time period with pre‐pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analysis using the inverse variance method.
Results
Fifty‐two studies with low‐to‐moderate risk of bias, reporting on 2 372 521 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 28 518 300 pregnancies during the pre‐pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (43 studies, unadjusted odds ratio uaOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93–0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (five studies, adjusted OR aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74–1.19). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (29 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85–0.94) but not in regional/national studies (14 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99–1.01). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (nine studies, uaOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88–0.94) but not in induced PTB (eight studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.01). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre‐pandemic time periods (32 studies, uaOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97–1.18 and three studies, aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86–1.63). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre‐pandemic period (nine studies, mean difference 21 g, 95% CI 13–30 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (five studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05–1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available, and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.
Conclusions
The COVID‐19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirths between pandemic and pre‐pandemic periods.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Introduction
Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the COVID‐19 pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our ...study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta‐analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre‐pandemic periods.
Material and methods
We searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until 14 May 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID‐19 pandemic time period and pre‐pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analysis using the inverse variance method.
Results
Thirty‐seven studies with low‐to‐moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 677 858 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 21 028 650 pregnancies during the pre‐pandemic period, were included. There was a significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (28 studies, unadjusted odds ratio uaOR 0.94, 95% confidence CI 0.91–0.98) but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80–1.13). The reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86–0.94) but not in regional/national studies (uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95–1.03). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.98) and induced PTB (four studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81–1.00). There was no reduction in PTB when stratified by gestational age <34, <32 or <28 weeks. There was no difference in stillbirths between the pandemic and pre‐pandemic time periods (21 studies, uaOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94–1.23; four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81–1.38). There was an increase in birthweight (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7–28 g) during the pandemic period. There was an increase in maternal mortality (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05–1.26), which was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.
Conclusions
The COVID‐19 pandemic time period may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no difference in stillbirth between the pandemic and pre‐pandemic period.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Social capital is often described as a collective benefit engendered by generalised trust, civic participation, and mutual reciprocity. This feature of communities has been shown to associate with an ...assortment of health outcomes at several levels of analysis. The current study assesses the evidence for an association between area-level social capital and individual-level subjective health. Respondents participating in waves 8 (1998) and 9 (1999) of the British Household Panel Survey were identified and followed-up 5 years later in wave 13 (2003). Area social capital was measured by two aggregated survey items: social trust and civic participation. Multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to examine the association between area social capital indicators and individual poor self-rated health. Evidence for a protective association with current self-rated health was found for area social trust after controlling for individual characteristics, baseline self-rated health and individual social trust. There was no evidence for an association between area civic participation and self-rated health after adjustment. The findings of this study expand the literature on social capital and health through the use of longitudinal data and multilevel modelling techniques.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
IMPORTANCE: There are limited high-quality, population-level data about the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy using contemporaneous comparator cohorts. OBJECTIVES: To describe maternal and ...perinatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and to assess variables associated with severe disease in the pregnant population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CANCOVID-Preg is an observational surveillance program for SARS-CoV-2–affected pregnancies in Canada. This analysis presents exploratory, population-level data from 6 Canadian provinces for the period of March 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. A total of 6012 pregnant persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result at any time in pregnancy (primarily due to symptomatic presentation) were included and compared with 2 contemporaneous groups including age-matched female individuals with SARS-CoV-2 and unaffected pregnant persons from the pandemic time period. EXPOSURE: SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Incident infections in pregnancy were reported to CANCOVID-Preg by participating provinces/territories. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as risk factors for severe disease (ie, disease requiring hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit/critical care unit, and/or oxygen therapy). RESULTS: Among 6012 pregnant individuals with SARS-CoV-2 in Canada (median age, 31 IQR, 28-35 years), the greatest proportion of cases were diagnosed at 28 to 37 weeks’ gestation (35.7%). Non-White individuals were disproportionately represented. Being pregnant was associated with a significantly increased risk of SARS-CoV-2–related hospitalization compared with SARS-CoV-2 cases among all women aged 20 to 49 years in the general population of Canada (7.75% vs 2.93%; relative risk, 2.65 95% CI, 2.41-2.88) as well as an increased risk of intensive care unit/critical care unit admission (2.01% vs 0.37%; relative risk, 5.46 95% CI, 4.50-6.53). Increasing age, preexisting hypertension, and greater gestational age at diagnosis were significantly associated with worse maternal outcomes. The risk of preterm birth was significantly elevated among SARS-CoV-2–affected pregnancies (11.05% vs 6.76%; relative risk, 1.63 95% CI, 1.52-1.76), even in cases of milder disease not requiring hospitalization, compared with unaffected pregnancies during the same time period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory surveillance study conducted in Canada from March 2020 to October 2021, SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy was significantly associated with increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes and preterm birth.
Pregnant people are particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to ensuing severe illness. Predicting adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes could aid clinicians in deciding on hospital ...admission and early initiation of treatment in affected individuals, streamlining the triaging processes.
An international repository of 1501 SARS-CoV-2-positive cases in pregnancy was created, consisting of demographic variables, patient comorbidities, laboratory markers, respiratory parameters, and COVID-19-related symptoms. Data were filtered, preprocessed, and feature selection methods were used to obtain the optimal feature subset for training a variety of machine learning models to predict maternal or fetal/neonatal death or critical illness.
The Random Forest model demonstrated the best performance among the trained models, correctly identifying 83.3% of the high-risk patients and 92.5% of the low-risk patients, with an overall accuracy of 89.0%, an AUC of 0.90 (95% Confidence Interval 0.83 to 0.95), and a recall, precision, and F1 score of 0.85, 0.94, and 0.89, respectively. This was achieved using a feature subset of 25 features containing patient characteristics, symptoms, clinical signs, and laboratory markers. These included maternal BMI, gravidity, parity, existence of pre-existing conditions, nicotine exposure, anti-hypertensive medication administration, fetal malformations, antenatal corticosteroid administration, presence of dyspnea, sore throat, fever, fatigue, duration of symptom phase, existence of COVID-19-related pneumonia, need for maternal oxygen administration, disease-related inpatient treatment, and lab markers including sFLT-1/PlGF ratio, platelet count, and LDH.
We present the first COVID-19 prognostication pipeline specifically for pregnant patients while utilizing a large SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy data repository. Our model accurately identifies those at risk of severe illness or clinical deterioration, presenting a promising tool for advancing personalized medicine in pregnant patients with COVID-19.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
In vitro fertilization (IVF) is associated with abnormal trophoblast invasion and resultant decreased levels of circulating placental biomarkers such as placental growth factor (PlGF). Our objective ...was to evaluate maternal serum levels of second/third trimester PlGF, sonographic placental parameters, and clinical outcomes among IVF frozen embryo transfer (FET) pregnancies with and without embryo trophectoderm biopsy.PURPOSEIn vitro fertilization (IVF) is associated with abnormal trophoblast invasion and resultant decreased levels of circulating placental biomarkers such as placental growth factor (PlGF). Our objective was to evaluate maternal serum levels of second/third trimester PlGF, sonographic placental parameters, and clinical outcomes among IVF frozen embryo transfer (FET) pregnancies with and without embryo trophectoderm biopsy.This was a retrospective study of pregnant patients who conceived using a single frozen embryo transfer (FET) and gave birth between 30 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. We compared PlGF levels, sonographic placental parameters, and clinical outcomes between FET with biopsy and FET without biopsy groups.METHODSThis was a retrospective study of pregnant patients who conceived using a single frozen embryo transfer (FET) and gave birth between 30 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. We compared PlGF levels, sonographic placental parameters, and clinical outcomes between FET with biopsy and FET without biopsy groups.The median PlGF level was 614.5 pg/mL (IQR 406-1020) for FET pregnancies with biopsy, and 717.0 pg/mL (IQR 552-1215) for FET pregnancies without biopsy. The adjusted mean difference was 190.9 pg/mL lower in the FET biopsy group (95% CI, -410.6, 28.8; p = 0.088). There were no statistically significant differences in placental parameters or clinical pregnancy outcomes.RESULTSThe median PlGF level was 614.5 pg/mL (IQR 406-1020) for FET pregnancies with biopsy, and 717.0 pg/mL (IQR 552-1215) for FET pregnancies without biopsy. The adjusted mean difference was 190.9 pg/mL lower in the FET biopsy group (95% CI, -410.6, 28.8; p = 0.088). There were no statistically significant differences in placental parameters or clinical pregnancy outcomes.This exploratory study demonstrated a possible trend toward lower maternal serum PlGF in the pregnancies conceived with FET using a biopsied embryo. Further investigation is warranted into the potential placental health effects of trophectoderm biopsy.CONCLUSIONThis exploratory study demonstrated a possible trend toward lower maternal serum PlGF in the pregnancies conceived with FET using a biopsied embryo. Further investigation is warranted into the potential placental health effects of trophectoderm biopsy.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OBVAL, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Introduction
Conflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic have ...surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta‐analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre‐pandemic periods.
Material and methods
We searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until August 14, 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID‐19 pandemic time period and the pre‐pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analysis using the inverse variance method.
Results
Forty‐five studies with low‐to‐moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 843 665 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 23 564 552 pregnancies during the pre‐pandemic period, were included. There was significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (35 studies, unadjusted odds ratio uaOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92–0.98), but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80–1.13). This reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (25 studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86–0.96) but not in regional/national studies (10 studies, uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95–1.02). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (six studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.96) and induced PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.97). There was no difference in the odds of stillbirth between the pandemic and pre‐pandemic time periods (24 studies, uaOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97–1.26 and four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81–1.38). There was an increase in mean birthweight during the pandemic period compared with the pre‐pandemic period (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7–28 g). The odds of maternal mortality were increased (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05–1.26); however, only unadjusted estimates were available and the result was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.
Conclusions
The COVID‐19 pandemic may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no statistically significant difference in stillbirth between pandemic and pre‐pandemic periods.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
