Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36732728›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on labor and childbirth care practices in Brazil: a cross-sectional study.

Fabiana Ramos de Menezes, Thales Philipe Rodrigues da Silva, Mariana Santos Felisbino-Mendes, Luana Caroline Dos Santos, Maria Albertina de Almeida Pereira Canastra, Maria Margarida Leitão Filipe, Mery Natali Silva Abreu, Francisco Carlos Félix Lana, Fernanda Marçal Ferreira, Alexandra Dias Moreira and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic began: lessons on vaccination and obstetric care in Brazil.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    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

12 authors.

Fabiana Ramos de MenezesSchool of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Thales Philipe Rodrigues da SilvaSchool of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Mariana Santos Felisbino-MendesDepartment of Maternal and Child Nursing and Public Health, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Luana Caroline Dos SantosDepartment of Nutrition, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Maria Albertina de Almeida Pereira CanastraMatosinhos Health Care Unit, Matosinhos, Portugal.
Maria Margarida Leitão FilipeMatosinhos Health Care Unit, Matosinhos, Portugal.
Mery Natali Silva AbreuDepartment of Health Management, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Francisco Carlos Félix LanaDepartment of Maternal and Child Nursing and Public Health, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Fernanda Marçal FerreiraSchool of Nursing, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alexandra Dias MoreiraDepartment of Maternal and Child Nursing and Public Health, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Eunice Francisca MartinsDepartment of Maternal and Child Nursing and Public Health, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Fernanda Penido MatozinhosDepartment of Maternal and Child Nursing and Public Health, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. nandapenido@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been hypothesized that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have changed the conduct of obstetric practices at the time of labor, delivery, and birth. In Brazil, many practices lacking scientific evidence are implemented in this care, which is charcaterized by excessive use of unnecessary interventions. This scenario may have been worsened by the pandemic. Thus, we analyzed the effects of the pandemic on care during prenatal care and delivery by comparing the results of two surveys (one was administered before the pandemic and the other during the pandemic) in public hospitals in Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil.

methodsThis cross-sectional and comparative study analyzed preliminary data from the study "Childbirth and breastfeeding in children of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2", which was conducted in three referral maternity hospitals in Belo Horizonte - MG during the pandemic in the first half of 2020 in Brazil. The final sample consisted of 1532 eligible women. These results were compared with data from 390 puerperae who gave birth in the three public hospitals in the study "Birth in Belo Horizonte: labor and birth survey", conducted before the pandemic to investigate the changes in practices of labor and delivery care for the mother and her newborn, with or without COVID-19 infection, before and during the pandemic. In this research, "Birth in Belo Horizonte: labor and birth survey", data collection was performed between November 2011 and March 2013 by previously trained nurses. Between study comparisons were performed using Pearson's chi-square test, with a confidence level of 95%, and using Stata statistical program.

resultsWe found a significant increase in practices recommended by the World Health Organization during the pandemic including the following: diet offering (48.90 to 98.65%), non-pharmacological pain relief (43.84 to 67.57%), and breastfeeding in the newborn´s first hour of life (60.31 to 77.98%) (p < 0.001). We found a significant reduction of non-recommended interventions, such as routine use of episiotomy (15.73 to 2.09%), the Kristeller maneuver (16.55 to 0.94%), oxytocin infusion misused (45.55 to 28.07%), amniotomy (30.81 to 15.08%), and lithotomy position during labor (71.23 to 6.54%) (p < 0.001).

conclusionOur study revealed a statistically significant increase in the proportion of use of recommended practices and a reduction in non-recommended practices during labor and delivery. However, despite advances in the establishment of World Health Organization recommended practices in labor, delivery, and birth, the predominance of interventionist and medicalized practices persists, which is worsened by events, such as the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Labor, ObstetricBrazilChildCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPandemicsPregnancySARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesChildbirthCOVID-19 virus infectionEpidemiologyPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36732728
PMCPMC9894737

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.