Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34847872›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and first lockdown on pregnancy monitoring in France: the COVIMATER cross-sectional study.

Alexandra Doncarli, Lucia Araujo-Chaveron, Catherine Crenn-Hebert, Virginie Demiguel, Julie Boudet-Berquier, Yaya Barry, Maria-Eugênia Gomes Do Espirito Santo, Andrea Guajardo-Villar, Claudie Menguy, Anouk Tabaï and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genomic Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants in the Dominican Republic and Emergence of a Local Lineage.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra Doncarli *Santé publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France. alexandra.doncarli@santepubliquefrance.fr.
Lucia Araujo-Chaveron *Santé publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Catherine Crenn-HebertDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Louis Mourier University Hospital, AP-HP, Colombes, France.
Virginie DemiguelSanté publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Julie Boudet-BerquierSanté publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Yaya BarrySanté publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Maria-Eugênia Gomes Do Espirito SantoSanté publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Andrea Guajardo-VillarSanté publique France, French national public health agency, Data processing, support and analysis department, Saint-Maurice, France.
Claudie MenguySanté publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Anouk TabaïSanté publique France, French national public health agency, Alert and crisis department, Saint-Maurice, France.
Karine WyndelsSanté Publique France, French national public health agency, Hauts-de-France regional office, Saint-Maurice, France.
Alexandra BenachiDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Antoine Béclère Hospital, AP-HP, Clamart, France.
Nolwenn RegnaultSanté publique France, French national public health agency, Non-Communicable Diseases and Trauma Division, Perinatology, Early childhood and Mental Health Unit, 14, rue du Val d'Osne, F-94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Santé Publique France · FRHôpital Antoine-Béclère · FRHôpital Louis-Mourier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, consultations and pregnancy monitoring examinations had to be reorganised urgently. In addition, women themselves may have postponed or cancelled their medical monitoring for organisational reasons, for fear of contracting the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) or for other reasons of their own. Delayed care can have deleterious consequences for both the mother and the child. Our objective was therefore to study the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the first lockdown in France on voluntary changes by pregnant women in the medical monitoring of their pregnancy and the associated factors.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2020 using a web-questionnaire completed by 500 adult (> 18 years old) pregnant women during the first French lockdown (March-May 2020). A robust variance Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs).

resultsAlmost one women of five (23.4%) reported having voluntarily postponed or foregone at least one consultation or pregnancy check-up during the lockdown. Women who were professionally inactive (aPR = 1.98, CI95%[1.24-3.16]), who had experienced serious disputes or violence during the lockdown (1.47, [1.00-2.16]), who felt they received little or no support (1.71, [1.07-2.71]), and those who changed health professionals during the lockdown (1.57, [1.04-2.36]) were all more likely to have voluntarily changed their pregnancy monitoring. Higher level of worry about the pandemic was associated with a lower probability of voluntarily changing pregnancy monitoring (0.66, [0.46-0.96]).

conclusionsOur results can guide prevention and support policies for pregnant women in the current and future pandemics.

Indexed as

PandemicsPregnant PeopleQuarantineAdultAnxietyCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleFranceHumansMiddle AgedPoisson DistributionPregnancySARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesLockdownPregnancy monitoringPregnant womenSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34847872
PMCPMC8630988
OpenAlexW3177460173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.