Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 38270717

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Routine Prenatal Care: Use of Online Visits

Overview
Journal Matern Child Health J
Specialty Health Services
Date 2024 Jan 25
PMID 38270717
Authors
Sadia Mobeen
Joshua Fogel
Krupa Harishankar
Allan J Jacobs
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

References
1.
Carter E, Tuuli M, Caughey A, Odibo A, Macones G, Cahill A . Number of prenatal visits and pregnancy outcomes in low-risk women. J Perinatol. 2015; 36(3):178-81. PMC: 4767570. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2015.183. View
2.
Doncarli A, Araujo-Chaveron L, Crenn-Hebert C, Demiguel V, Boudet-Berquier J, Barry Y . Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and first lockdown on pregnancy monitoring in France: the COVIMATER cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):799. PMC: 8630988. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-04256-9. View
3.
Eswaran H, Magann E . Use of Telemedicine and Smart Technology in Obstetrics: Barriers and Privacy Issues. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 64(2):392-397. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000624. View
4.
Fryer K, Delgado A, Foti T, Reid C, Marshall J . Implementation of Obstetric Telehealth During COVID-19 and Beyond. Matern Child Health J. 2020; 24(9):1104-1110. PMC: 7305486. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-020-02967-7. View
5.
Iezzoni L . Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 127(8 Pt 2):666-74. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00048. View