29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Global changes in maternity care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background

          The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on healthcare systems globally, with a worrying increase in adverse maternal and foetal outcomes. We aimed to assess the changes in maternity healthcare provision and healthcare-seeking by pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Methods

          We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of the pandemic on provision of, access to and attendance at maternity services (CRD42020211753). We searched MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines from January 1st, 2020 to April 17th 2021 for controlled observational studies and research letters reporting primary data comparing maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare delivery during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Case reports and series, systematic literature reviews, and pre-print studies were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on comparable outcomes that were reported in two or more studies. Data were combined using random-effects meta-analysis, using risk ratios (RR) or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

          Findings

          Of 4743 citations identified, 56 were included in the systematic review, and 21 in the meta-analysis. We identified a significant decrease in the number of antenatal clinic visits (IRR 0614, 95% CI 0486–0776, P<00001, I 2=54.6%) and unscheduled care visits (IRR 0741, 95% CI 0602–0911, P = 00046, I 2=00%) per week, and an increase in virtual or remote antenatal care (IRR 4656 95% CI 7762–2794, P<00001, I 2=90.6%) and hospitalisation of unscheduled attendees (RR 1214, 95% CI 1118–1319, P<00001, I 2=00%). There was a decrease in the use of GA for category 1 Caesarean sections (CS) (RR 0529, 95% CI 0407–0690, P<00001, I 2=00%). There was no significant change in intrapartum epidural use ( P = 00896) or the use of GA for elective CS ( P = 079)

          Interpretation

          Reduced maternity healthcare-seeking and healthcare provision during the COVID-19 pandemic has been global, and must be considered as potentially contributing to worsening of pregnancy outcomes observed during the pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

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

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

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

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

            Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker)

              COVID-19 has prompted unprecedented government action around the world. We introduce the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), a dataset that addresses the need for continuously updated, readily usable and comparable information on policy measures. From 1 January 2020, the data capture government policies related to closure and containment, health and economic policy for more than 180 countries, plus several countries' subnational jurisdictions. Policy responses are recorded on ordinal or continuous scales for 19 policy areas, capturing variation in degree of response. We present two motivating applications of the data, highlighting patterns in the timing of policy adoption and subsequent policy easing and reimposition, and illustrating how the data can be combined with behavioural and epidemiological indicators. This database enables researchers and policymakers to explore the empirical effects of policy responses on the spread of COVID-19 cases and deaths, as well as on economic and social welfare.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                EClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                19 June 2021
                July 2021
                19 June 2021
                : 37
                : 100947
                Affiliations
                [a ]Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [b ]Vascular Biology Research Centre, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, United Kingdom
                [c ]Fetal Medicine Unit, St George's Hospital, St George's University of London, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackshaw Road, London SW17 0QT, United Kingdom
                [d ]Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Statistics, Ankara, Turkey
                [e ]Koc University, School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Istanbul, Turkey
                [f ]Department of Health Service Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
                [g ]The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, United Kingdom
                [h ]University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [i ]Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom
                [j ]North Bristol NHS Trust Department of Women's Health, Westbury on Trym, United Kingdom
                [k ]Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, WHO Collaborating Centre for Women's Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [l ]Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group and Vaccine Institute, Institute of Infection and Immunity, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom
                [m ]Immunisation and Countermeasures Division, Public Health England, United Kingdom
                [n ]British Paediatric Surveillance Unit, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London, United Kingdom
                [o ]Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article
                S2589-5370(21)00227-3 100947
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100947
                8233134
                34195576
                dba82c98-1f3a-4093-81f0-fc29d37ab1fd
                © 2021 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 6 April 2021
                : 17 May 2021
                : 18 May 2021
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article