5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Did the COVID‐19 pandemic affect mental health, training progression, and fertility planning of obstetrics and gynecology trainees? A survey of London trainees

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose of Study

          To assess impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on mental wellbeing, workload, training progression, and fertility planning among London Obstetrics and Gynecology trainees.

          Design

          An anonymous survey comprising 41 peer‐validated questions was sent to London trainees. Anxiety and depression were screened using Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire 7 (GAD 7) and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9).

          Results

          One hundred and seventy‐seven trainees completed the questionnaire, of whom 54% were aged 25–34 years, 43% were senior trainees (ST6‐7), and 51% classified themselves as Black, Asian, and Minority Asian (BAME). Although the percentage of respondents with “moderate”/“severe” GAD 7 and PHQ‐9 scores was two to three times that of UK population estimates, median GAD 7 and PHQ‐9 scores were 7 and 6 (“mild”). Sixteen percent deferred their fertility plans and 26% of ST6‐7 trainees changed their Advanced Training Skills Modules. Other issues raised ranged from lack of assistance with electronic portfolio, postponement of examinations, poor senior input for mental health, lack of debriefing for redeployed trainees and requests for deferment of annual reviews.

          Conclusions

          The pandemic has incurred an impact on mental health, training progression, and fertility planning of London trainees. With recommencement of nonemergency consultations and elective gynecology theater, alongside Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Recovery Blueprint to optimize learning opportunities, there is optimism that these challenges can be overcome. Trainers and trainees need to safeguard training opportunities and consider innovative forms of future learning, while anticipating potential effects of subsequent waves.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

            While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Characteristics of Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status — United States, January 22–June 7, 2020

              As of June 16, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in 2,104,346 cases and 116,140 deaths in the United States.* During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections ( 1 , 2 ). To date, data to assess the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 among pregnant U.S. women and determine whether signs and symptoms differ among pregnant and nonpregnant women are limited. During January 22–June 7, as part of COVID-19 surveillance, CDC received reports of 326,335 women of reproductive age (15–44 years) who had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Data on pregnancy status were available for 91,412 (28.0%) women with laboratory-confirmed infections; among these, 8,207 (9.0%) were pregnant. Symptomatic pregnant and nonpregnant women with COVID-19 reported similar frequencies of cough (>50%) and shortness of breath (30%), but pregnant women less frequently reported headache, muscle aches, fever, chills, and diarrhea. Chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease were more commonly reported among pregnant women than among nonpregnant women. Among women with COVID-19, approximately one third (31.5%) of pregnant women were reported to have been hospitalized compared with 5.8% of nonpregnant women. After adjusting for age, presence of underlying medical conditions, and race/ethnicity, pregnant women were significantly more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (aRR = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–1.8) and receive mechanical ventilation (aRR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2–2.4). Sixteen (0.2%) COVID-19–related deaths were reported among pregnant women aged 15–44 years, and 208 (0.2%) such deaths were reported among nonpregnant women (aRR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.5–1.5). These findings suggest that among women of reproductive age with COVID-19, pregnant women are more likely to be hospitalized and at increased risk for ICU admission and receipt of mechanical ventilation compared with nonpregnant women, but their risk for death is similar. To reduce occurrence of severe illness from COVID-19, pregnant women should be counseled about the potential risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and measures to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 should be emphasized for pregnant women and their families. Data on laboratory-confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases † were electronically reported to CDC using a standardized case report form § or through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System ¶ as part of COVID-19 surveillance efforts. Data are updated by health departments as additional information becomes available. This analysis includes cases reported during January 22–June 7 with data updated as of June 17, 2020. Included cases were limited to laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 (confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test) among women aged 15–44 years from 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Data collected included information on demographic characteristics, pregnancy status, underlying medical conditions, clinical signs and symptoms, and outcomes (including hospitalization, ICU admission, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and death). Outcomes with missing data were assumed not to have occurred (i.e., if data were missing on hospitalization, women were assumed to not have been hospitalized). Crude and adjusted risk ratios and 95% CIs for outcomes were calculated using modified Poisson regression. Risk ratios were adjusted for age (as a continuous variable), presence of underlying chronic conditions (yes/no), and race/ethnicity. All analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). During January 22–June 7, among 1,573,211 laboratory-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection reported to CDC as part of national COVID-19 surveillance, a total of 326,335 (20.7%) occurred among women aged 15–44 years. Data on pregnancy status were available for 91,412 (28.0%) of these women; 8,207 (9.0%) were pregnant (Table 1). Approximately one quarter of all women aged 15–44 years were aged 15–24 years. A total of 54.4% of pregnant women and 38.2% of nonpregnant women were aged 25–34 years; 22.1% of pregnant women and 38.3% of nonpregnant women were aged 35–44 years. Information on race/ethnicity was available for 80.4% of pregnant women and 70.6% of nonpregnant women. Among pregnant women, 46.2% were Hispanic, 23.0% were non-Hispanic white (white), 22.1% were non-Hispanic black (black), and 3.8% were non-Hispanic Asian compared with 38.1%, 29.4%, 25.4%, and 3.2%, respectively, among nonpregnant women. TABLE 1 Demographic characteristics, symptoms, and underlying medical conditions among women aged 15–44 years with known pregnancy status and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (N = 91,412),* by pregnancy status — United States, January 22–June 7, 2020 Characteristic No. (%) Pregnant women
(n = 8,207) Nonpregnant women
(n = 83,205) Age group (yrs) 15–24 1,921 (23.4) 19,557 (23.5) 25–34 4,469 (54.4) 31,818 (38.2) 35–44 1,817 (22.1) 31,830 (38.3) Race/Ethnicity† Hispanic or Latino 3,048 (46.2) 22,394 (38.1) Asian, non-Hispanic 254 (3.8) 1,869 (3.2) Black, non-Hispanic 1,459 (22.1) 14,922 (25.4) White, non-Hispanic 1,520 (23.0) 17,297 (29.4) Multiple or other race, non-Hispanic§ 321 (4.9) 2,299 (3.9) Symptom status¶ Symptomatic 5,199 (97.1) 72,549 (96.9) Asymptomatic 156 (2.9) 2,328 (3.1) Symptom reported** Cough 1,799 (51.8) 23,554 (53.7) Fever†† 1,190 (34.3) 18,474 (42.1) Muscle aches 1,323 (38.1) 20,693 (47.2) Chills 989 (28.5) 15,630 (35.6) Headache 1,409 (40.6) 22,899 (52.2) Shortness of breath 1,045 (30.1) 13,292 (30.3) Sore throat 942 (27.1) 13,681 (31.2) Diarrhea 497 (14.3) 10,113 (23.1) Nausea or vomiting 682 (19.6) 6,795 (15.5) Abdominal pain 350 (10.1) 5,139 (11.7) Runny nose 326 (9.4) 4,540 (10.4) New loss of taste or smell§§ 587 (16.9) 7,262 (16.6) Underlying medical condition Known underlying medical condition status¶¶ 1,878 (22.9) 29,142 (35.0) Diabetes mellitus 288 (15.3) 1,866 (6.4) Chronic lung disease 409 (21.8) 3,006 (10.3) Cardiovascular disease 262 (14.0) 2,082 (7.1) Chronic renal disease 12 (0.6) 266 (0.9) Chronic liver disease 8 (0.4) 141 (0.5) Immunocompromised condition 66 (3.5) 811 (2.8) Neurologic disorder, neurodevelopmental disorder, or intellectual disability 17 (0.9) 389 (1.3) Other chronic disease 162 (8.6) 1,586 (5.4) Abbreviation: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Women with known pregnancy status, representing 28% of 326,335 total cases in women aged 15–44 years. † Race/ethnicity was missing for 1,605 (20%) pregnant women and 24,424 (29%) nonpregnant women. § Other race includes American Indian or Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. ¶ Data on symptom status were missing for 2,852 (35%) pregnant women and 8,328 (10%) nonpregnant women. ** Among symptomatic women (3,474 pregnant; 43,855 nonpregnant) with any of the following symptoms noted as present or absent on the CDC's Human Infection with 2019 Novel Coronavirus Case Report Form: fever (measured >100.4°F [38°C] or subjective), cough, shortness of breath, wheezing, difficulty breathing, chills, rigors, myalgia, rhinorrhea, sore throat, chest pain, nausea or vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, fatigue, diarrhea (three or more loose stools in a 24-hour period), new olfactory or taste disorder, or other symptom not otherwise specified on the form. †† Patients were included if they had information for either measured or subjective fever variables and were considered to have a fever if “yes” was indicated for either variable. §§ New olfactory and taste disorder has only been included on the CDC's Human Infection with 2019 Novel Coronavirus Case Report Form since May 5, 2020. Therefore, data might be underreported for this symptom. ¶¶ Status was classified as “known” if any of the following conditions were noted as present or absent on the CDC's Human Infection with 2019 Novel Coronavirus Case Report Form: diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease (including hypertension), severe obesity (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2), chronic renal disease, chronic liver disease, chronic lung disease, immunosuppressive condition, autoimmune condition, neurologic condition (including neurodevelopmental, intellectual, physical, visual, or hearing impairment), psychological/psychiatric condition, and other underlying medical condition not otherwise specified. Symptom status was reported for 65.2% of pregnant women and 90.0% of nonpregnant women; among those with symptom status reported, 97.1% of pregnant and 96.9% nonpregnant women reported being symptomatic. Symptomatic pregnant and nonpregnant women also reported similar frequencies of cough (51.8% versus 53.7%) and shortness of breath (30.1% versus 30.3%). Pregnant women less frequently reported headache (40.6% versus 52.2%), muscle aches (38.1% versus 47.2%), fever (34.3% versus 42.1%), chills (28.5% versus 35.6%), and diarrhea (14.3% versus 23.1%) than did nonpregnant women. Data were available on presence and absence of underlying chronic conditions for 22.9% of pregnant women and 35.0% of nonpregnant women. Chronic lung disease (21.8% pregnant; 10.3% nonpregnant), diabetes mellitus (15.3% pregnant; 6.4% nonpregnant), and cardiovascular disease (14.0% pregnant; 7.1% nonpregnant) were the most commonly reported chronic conditions. Data were not available to distinguish whether chronic conditions were present before or associated with pregnancy (e.g., gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy). Hospitalization was reported by a substantially higher percentage of pregnant women (31.5%) than nonpregnant women (5.8%) (Table 2). Data were not available to distinguish hospitalization for COVID-19–related circumstances (e.g., worsening respiratory status) from hospital admission for pregnancy-related treatment or procedures (e.g., delivery). Pregnant women were admitted more frequently to the ICU (1.5%) than were nonpregnant women (0.9%). Similarly, 0.5% of pregnant women required mechanical ventilation compared with 0.3% of nonpregnant women. Sixteen deaths (0.2%) were reported among 8,207 pregnant women, and 208 (0.2%) were reported among 83,205 nonpregnant women. When stratified by age, all outcomes (hospitalization, ICU admission, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and death) were more frequently reported among women aged 35–44 years than among those aged 15–24 years, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were non-Hispanic Asian (3.5%) than among all pregnant women (1.5%) (Table 2). TABLE 2 Hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, receipt of mechanical ventilation, and deaths among women with known pregnancy status and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (N = 91,412), by pregnancy status, age group, and race/ethnicity, and relative risk for these outcomes comparing pregnant women to nonpregnant women aged 15–44 years — United States, January 22–June 7, 2020 Outcome* No. (%) Crude risk ratio
(95% CI) Adjusted risk ratio†
(95% CI) Pregnant women
(n = 8,207) Nonpregnant women
(n = 83,205) Hospitalization§ 5.4 (5.2–5.7) 5.4 (5.1–5.6) All 2,587 (31.5) 4,840 (5.8) Age group (yrs) 15–24 562 (29.3) 639 (3.3) 25–34 1,398 (31.3) 1,689 (5.3) 35–44 627 (34.5) 2,512 (7.9) Race/Ethnicity¶ Hispanic or Latino 968 (31.7) 1,473 (6.5) Asian, non-Hispanic 100 (39.4) 136 (7.3) Black, non-Hispanic 461 (31.6) 1,199 (8.0) White, non-Hispanic 492 (32.4) 803 (4.6) Multiple or other race, non-Hispanic** 136 (42.4) 194 (8.4) ICU admission†† 1.6 (1.3–1.9) 1.5 (1.2–1.8) All 120 (1.5) 757 (0.9) Age group (yrs) 15–24 19 (1.0) 100 (0.5) 25–34 53 (1.2) 251 (0.8) 35–44 48 (2.6) 406 (1.3) Race/Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 49 (1.6) 194 (0.9) Asian, non-Hispanic 9 (3.5) 25 (1.3) Black, non-Hispanic 28 (1.9) 194 (1.3) White, non-Hispanic 12 (0.8) 158 (0.9) Multiple or other race, non-Hispanic** <5 (—§§) 40 (1.7) Hispanic or Latino 49 (1.6) 194 (0.9) Mechanical ventilation¶¶ 1.9 (1.4–2.6) 1.7 (1.2–2.4) All 42 (0.5) 225 (0.3) Age group (yrs) 15–24 <5 (—§§) 22 (0.1) 25–34 18 (0.4) 74 (0.2) 35–44 21 (1.2) 129 (0.4) Race/Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 13 (0.4) 70 (0.3) Asian, non-Hispanic <5 (—§§) 13 (0.7) Black, non-Hispanic 9 (0.6) 48 (0.3) White, non-Hispanic <5 (—§§) 44 (0.3) Multiple or other race, non-Hispanic** 5 (1.6) 16 (0.7) Death*** 0.8 (0.5–1.3) 0.9 (0.5–1.5) All 16 (0.2) 208 (0.2) Age group (yrs) 15–24 <5 (—§§) 9 (0.0) 25–34 7 (0.2) 58 (0.2) 35–44 8 (0.4) 141 (0.4) Race/Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 5 (0.2) 47 (0.2) Asian, non-Hispanic <5 (—§§) 7 (0.4) Black, non-Hispanic 6 (0.4) 74 (0.5) White, non-Hispanic <5 (—§§) 37 (0.2) Multiple or other race, non-Hispanic** <5 (—§§) 8 (0.4) Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. * Percentages calculated among total in pregnancy status group with known hospitalization status, ICU admission status, mechanical ventilation status, or death. † Adjusted for age as a continuous variable, dichotomous yes/no variable for presence of underlying conditions, and categorical race/ethnicity variable. Nonpregnant women are the referent group. § A total of 1,539 (18%) pregnant women and 9,744 (12%) nonpregnant women were missing information on hospitalization status and were assumed to have not been hospitalized. ¶ Race/ethnicity was missing for 1,605 (20%) pregnant women and 24,424 (29%) nonpregnant women. ** Other race includes American Indian or Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. †† A total of 6,079 (74%) pregnant women and 58,888 (71%) nonpregnant women were missing information for ICU admission and were assumed to have not been admitted to an ICU. §§ Cell counts <5 are suppressed. ¶¶ A total of 6,351 (77%) pregnant women and 63,893 (77%) nonpregnant women were missing information for receipt of mechanical ventilation and were assumed to have not received mechanical ventilation. *** A total of 3,819 (47%) pregnant women and 17,420 (21%) nonpregnant women were missing information on death and were assumed to have survived. After adjusting for age, presence of underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity, pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized (95% CI = 5.1–5.6), 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU ( 95% CI = 1.2–1.8), and 1.7 times more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (95% CI = 1.2–2.4) (Table 2). No difference in the risk for death between pregnant and nonpregnant women was found (aRR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.5–1.5). Discussion As of June 7, 2020, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to CDC, representing approximately 9% of cases among women of reproductive age with data available on pregnancy status. This finding is similar to that of a recent analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients ( 3 ); however, given that approximately 5% of women aged 15–44 years are pregnant at a point in time,** this percentage is higher than expected. Although these findings could be related to the increased risk for illness, they also could be related to the high proportion of reproductive-aged women for whom data on pregnancy status was missing, if these women were more likely to not be pregnant. The higher-than-expected percentage of COVID-19 cases among women of reproductive age who were pregnant might also be attributable to increased screening and detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women compared with nonpregnant women or by more frequent health care encounters, which increase opportunities to receive SARS-CoV-2 testing. Several inpatient obstetric health care facilities have implemented universal screening and testing policies for pregnant women upon admission ( 4 – 6 ). During the study period, among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who reported race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white; these proportions differ from those among women with reported race/ethnicity who gave birth in 2019: 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. †† Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Among women with known symptom status, similar percentages of pregnant and nonpregnant women were symptomatic with COVID-19. However, data on symptom status were missing for approximately one third of pregnant women, compared with 10% of nonpregnant women; therefore, if those with missing symptom status are more likely to be asymptomatic, the percentage of pregnant women who are asymptomatic could be higher than the percentage of asymptomatic nonpregnant women. The percentages of pregnant women reporting fever, muscle aches, chills, headache, and diarrhea were lower than those reported among nonpregnant women, suggesting that signs and symptoms of COVID-19 might differ between pregnant and nonpregnant women. Diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease, and cardiovascular disease were reported more frequently among pregnant women than among nonpregnant women. Additional information is needed to distinguish medical conditions that developed before pregnancy from those that developed during pregnancy and to determine whether this distinction affects clinical outcomes of COVID-19. Whereas hospitalization occurred in a significantly higher proportion of pregnant women than nonpregnant women, data needed to distinguish hospitalization for COVID-19 from hospital admission for pregnancy-related conditions were not available. Further, differences in hospitalization by pregnancy status might reflect a lower threshold for admitting pregnant patients or for universal screening and testing policies that some hospitals have implemented for women admitted to the labor and delivery unit ( 4 – 7 ). In contrast, however, ICU admission and receipt of mechanical ventilation are distinct proxies for illness severity ( 8 ), and after adjusting for age, presence of underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity, the risks for both outcomes were significantly higher among pregnant women than among nonpregnant women. These findings are similar to those from a recent study in Sweden, which found that pregnant women with COVID-19 were five times more likely to be admitted to the ICU and four times more like to receive mechanical ventilation than were nonpregnant women ( 9 ). The risk for death was the same for pregnant and nonpregnant women. A recent meta-analysis of individual participant data among women of reproductive age found that for influenza, pregnancy was associated with a seven times higher risk for hospitalization, a lower risk for ICU admission, and no increased risk for death ( 10 ). The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, pregnancy status was missing for three quarters of women of reproductive age with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, among COVID-19 cases in female patients with known pregnancy status, data on race/ethnicity, symptoms, underlying conditions, and outcomes were missing for a large proportion of cases. This circumstance could lead to overestimation or underestimation of some characteristics, if those with missing data were systematically different from those with available data. To avoid overestimating the risk for adverse outcomes, the absence of data on an outcome was assumed to indicate that the outcome did not occur, and those persons with missing information were included in the denominator. Second, additional time might be needed to ascertain and report outcomes such as ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death, and this analysis might underestimate the prevalence of these outcomes. Third, information on pregnancy trimester at the time of infection or whether the hospitalization was related to pregnancy conditions rather than for COVID-19 illness was not available and limits the interpretation of hospitalization data. Finally, routine case surveillance does not capture pregnancy or birth outcomes; thus, it remains unclear whether SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss or preterm birth. The findings in this report suggest that among adolescents and women aged 15–44 years with COVID-19, pregnancy is associated with increased risk for ICU admission and receipt of mechanical ventilation, but it is not associated with increased risk for mortality. This report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women. Further, collection of longitudinal data for pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, including information about pregnancy outcomes, is needed to understand the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on maternal and neonatal outcomes. To address these data gaps, CDC, in collaboration with health departments, has initiated COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance to report pregnancy-related information and outcomes among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. CDC will continue to provide updates on COVID-19 cases in pregnant women. Although additional data are needed to further understand these observed elevated risks, pregnant women should be made aware of their potential risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Pregnant women and their families should take measures to ensure their health and prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Specific actions pregnant women can take include not skipping prenatal care appointments, limiting interactions with other people as much as possible, taking precautions to prevent getting COVID-19 when interacting with others, having at least a 30-day supply of medicines, and talking to their health care provider about how to stay healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic. §§ To reduce severe outcomes from COVID-19 among pregnant women, measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection should be emphasized, and potential barriers to the ability to adhere to these measures need to be addressed. Summary What is already known about this topic? Limited information is available about SARS-CoV-2 infection in U.S. pregnant women. What is added by this report? Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Among reproductive-age women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, pregnancy was associated with hospitalization and increased risk for intensive care unit admission, and receipt of mechanical ventilation, but not with death. What are the implications for public health practice? Pregnant women might be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness. To reduce severe COVID-19–associated illness, pregnant women should be aware of their potential risk for severe COVID-19 illness. Prevention of COVID-19 should be emphasized for pregnant women and potential barriers to adherence to these measures need to be addressed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                waiyoong@nhs.net
                Journal
                J Obstet Gynaecol Res
                J Obstet Gynaecol Res
                10.1111/(ISSN)1447-0756
                JOG
                The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
                John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd (Kyoto, Japan )
                1341-8076
                1447-0756
                07 February 2022
                April 2022
                07 February 2022
                : 48
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/jog.v48.4 )
                : 1026-1032
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology North Middlesex University Hospital London UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Barnet General Hospital Barnet UK
                [ 3 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Homerton University Hospital London UK
                [ 4 ] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Wai Yoong, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, North Middlesex University Hospital, London N18 1QX, UK.

                Email: waiyoong@ 123456nhs.net

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7147-6685
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7286-5968
                Article
                JOG15164
                10.1111/jog.15164
                9115236
                35128763
                d109d0b2-5e9f-46aa-8ca5-ccc5f38c2ee2
                © 2022 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 19 December 2021
                : 13 October 2021
                : 16 January 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 7, Words: 4261
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.6 mode:remove_FC converted:18.05.2022

                anxiety,covid‐19,depression,fertility,mental health,obstetrics and gynecology trainees,training progression

                Comments

                Comment on this article