Psychological stress among pregnant and puerperal women in Japan during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
To evaluate psychological stress among pregnant and puerperal women in Japan during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Methods
In this cross-sectional study, we recruited pregnant women and puerperal women who delivered between January and September 2020 in Japan, using an online questionnaire. Participants were divided into low, middle, and high groups according to the degree of the epidemic in their region of residence. Related factors were analyzed using the chi-squared test. The relationship between COVID-19 epidemic regions and depression risks and anxiety using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Kessler 6 scale (K6) was evaluated using a univariate and multivariable logistic regression model.Results
Overall, 7775 cases, including 4798 pregnant and 2977 puerperal women, were analyzed. The prevalence of high EPDS and K6 scores was significantly increased in pregnant women in the high than those in the low epidemic regions (EPDS: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.453, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.205-1.753; K6: aOR 1.601, 95% CI 1.338-1.918). There was no difference in EPDS score, but the prevalence of high K6 scores was significantly increased in puerperal women in the high than those in the low epidemic regions (aOR 1.342, 95% CI 1.066-1.690). Further, restriction on going to their hometown for delivery increased the prevalence of high EPDS scores among pregnant (aOR 1.663, 95% CI 1.296-2.133) and puerperal women (aOR 1.604, 95% CI 1.006-2.557).Conclusions
Decreased support due to the COVID-19 pandemic affected the psychological status of pregnant and puerperal women; hence, investing medical resources in their healthcare essential.
SUBMITTER: Obata S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447435 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The current ongoing pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has globally affected 213 countries and territories with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases and thousands of casualties. The unpredictable and uncertain COVID-19 outbreak has the potential of adversely affecting the psychological health on individual and community level. Currently all efforts are focused on the understanding of epidemiology, clinical features, mode of transmission, counteract the spread of the virus, and challenges of global health, while crucially significant mental health has been overlooked in this endeavor. METHOD:This review is to evaluate past outbreaks to understand the extent of adverse effects on psychological health, psychological crisis intervention, and mental health management plans. Published previous and current articles on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Elsevier about psychological impact of infectious diseases outbreaks and COVID-19 has been considered and reviewed. COMMENTS:COVID-19 is leading to intense psychosocial issues and comprising mental health marking a secondary health concern all around the world. Globally implementing preventive and controlling measures, and cultivating coping and resilience are challenging factors; modified lifestyle (lockdown curfew, self-isolation, social distancing and quarantine); conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation about the origin, scale, signs, symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment; global socioeconomic crisis; travel restrictions; workplace hazard control; postponement and cancellation of religious, sports, cultural and entertainment events; panic buying and hoarding; incidents of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, stigma, psychological pressure of productivity, marginalization and violence; overwhelmed medical centers and health organizations, and general impact on education, politics, socioeconomic, culture, environment and climate - are some of the risk factors to aggravate further problems.
| S-EPMC7405632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence of psychological symptoms of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak among pregnant women and its association with gestational age and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted between June and November 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in pregnancy using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised. Pregnant women 18 years and older were recruited from antenatal and obstetrics clinics in Jordan. A total of 481 pregnant women participated in an online survey developed on Google Forms. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect sociodemographic data, mental health information, and lifestyle changes. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the Perceived Support Scale, and the Mental Health Lifestyle Scale were administered. Variables related to sociodemographic information and dietary behavior and perception during the COVID-19 pandemic were also assessed.ResultsThe results showed that 58.6% of pregnant women reported the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and women in the second trimester were more likely to show post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms compared with the first and third trimesters (p = 0.001). Moreover, a higher level of education, employment, poor dietary habits, and changes due to the pandemic were significantly associated with the Impact of Event Scale-Revised score and the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with high rates of psychological distress among pregnant women. Identifying mothers at risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms may help improve maternity services and prevent adverse child outcomes.
| S-EPMC9290107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare hospitalized reproductive age women with COVID-19 who were pregnant, puerperal, or neither one nor the other in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics and disease progression using Brazilian epidemiological data.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the records of the Information System of the Epidemiological Surveillance of Influenza of the Health Ministry of Brazil was performed. It included the data of female patients aged 10 to 49 years hospitalized because of severe COVID-19 disease (RT-PCR+ for SARS-CoV-2), from February 17, 2020 to January 02, 2021. They were separated into 3 groups: pregnant, puerperal, and neither pregnant nor puerperal. General comparisons and then adjustments for confounding variables (propensity score matching [PSM]) were made, using demographic and clinical characteristics, disease progression (admission to the intensive care unit [ICU] and invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support), and outcome (cure or death). Deaths were analyzed in each group according to comorbidities, invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support, and admission to the ICU.ResultsAs many as 40,640 reproductive age women hospitalized for COVID-19 were identified: 3,372 were pregnant, 794 were puerperal, and 36,474 were neither pregnant nor puerperal. Groups were significantly different in terms of demographic data and comorbidities (p<0.0001). Pregnant and puerperal women were less likely to be symptomatic than the women who were neither one nor the other (72.1%, 69.7% and 88.8%, respectively). Pregnant women, however, had a higher frequency of anosmia, and ageusia than the others. After PSM, puerperal women had a worse prognosis than pregnant women with respect to admission to the ICU, invasive ventilatory support, and death, with OR (95% CI) 1.97 (1.55 - 2.50), 2.71 (1.78 - 4.13), and 2.51 (1.79 - 3.52), respectively.ConclusionPuerperal women were at a higher risk for serious outcomes (need for the ICU, need for invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support, and death) than pregnant women.
| S-EPMC8592461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the associated regulations issued to minimize risk of disease transmission seem to have had an impact on general mental health in most populations, but it may have affected pregnant women even more because of pregnancy-related uncertainties, limited access to healthcare resources, and lack of social support. We aimed to compare the mental health response among pregnant women with that in similarly aged women from the general population during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.Material and methodsFrom April 14 to July 3, 2020, 647 pregnant women in their second trimester were enrolled in this study. For comparison, 858 women from the general Danish population (20-46 years) were sampled from an ongoing observational study. Participants responded to a questionnaire including six mental health indicators (concern level, perceived social isolation, quality of life, anxiety, mental health, and loneliness). Loneliness was measured using the UCLA Three-item Loneliness Scale and anxiety by the Common Mental Health Disorder Questionnaire 4-item Anxiety Subscale.ResultsThe pregnant women had better scores during the entire study period for all mental health indicators, and except for concerns, social isolation, and mental health, the differences were also statistically significant. Pregnant women were more concerned about becoming seriously ill (40.2% vs. 29.5%, p < 0.001), whereas the general population was more concerned about economic consequences and prospects. Many pregnant women reported negative feelings associated with being pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic and concerns regarding social isolation and regulation-imposed partner absence during hospital appointments and childbirth. All mental health indicators improved as Denmark began to reopen after the first wave of the pandemic.ConclusionsPregnant women exhibited lower rates of poor mental health compared with the general population. However, they were more concerned about becoming seriously ill, expressed negative feelings about being pregnant during the pandemic, and were worried about the absence of their partner due to imposed regulations. These finding may be taken into account by policy-makers during pandemics to balance specific preventive measures over the potential mental health deterioration of pregnant women.
| S-EPMC8653239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the psychological health of patients with infertility who have become pregnant with that of women who have not.DesignProspective cohort study conducted from April 2020 to June 2020. The participants completed three questionnaires over this period.SettingA single large, university-affiliated infertility practice.PatientsA total of 443 pregnant women and 1,476 women still experiencing infertility who completed all three questionnaires.InterventionsNone.Main outcome measuresPatient-reported primary stressor over three months of the first major COVID-19 surge; further data on self-reported sadness, anxiety, loneliness, and the use of personal coping strategies.ResultsPregnant participants were significantly less likely to report taking an antidepressant or anxiolytic medication, were less likely to have a prior diagnosis of depression, were more likely to cite COVID-19 as a top stressor, and overall were less likely to practice stress-relieving activities during the first surge.ConclusionsWomen who became pregnant after receiving treatment for infertility cited the pandemic as their top stressor and were more distressed about the pandemic than their nonpregnant counterparts but were less likely to be engaging in stress-relieving activities. Given the ongoing impact of the pandemic, patients with infertility who become pregnant after receiving treatment should be counseled and encouraged to practice specific stress-reduction strategies.
| S-EPMC8786401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly affected daily life. COVID-19 often causes asymptomatic or mild disease in children; however, delayed routine childhood immunization is a concern, as it could increase the risk of vaccine-preventable disease. No study has evaluated the status of childhood vaccinations in Japan during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis retrospective observational study evaluated the number of vaccine doses administered to children in 4 Japanese cities (2 cities in the Tokyo metropolitan area and 2 cities far from Tokyo) during the period from 2016 to 2020. Vaccine doses administered between January and September 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared, by month, with those given during 2016-2019. Age-stratified demographic data were collected to determine whether factors other than change in the child population over time affected vaccination trends.ResultsIn all cities the decrease in vaccine doses administered was most apparent in March and April 2020, i.e., just before or coincident with the declaration of a nationwide COVID-19 emergency on April 7, 2020. The decrease started as early as February in the Tokyo metropolitan area. As child age increased, the decrease became more apparent. Before the lift of national emergency on May 25, catch-up of the vaccination was observed in all age groups in all cities. Vaccine doses persistently increased in older age groups but not in infants. The overall vaccination trends did not differ significantly among the 4 cities.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected routine childhood immunization in Japan. Thus, a nationwide electronic surveillance system and announcements for guardians to encourage timely routine immunization are warranted.
| S-EPMC8139263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Prenatal and postnatal mental disorders can exert severe adverse influences on mothers, fetuses, and children. However, the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the mental health of pregnant and postpartum women remains unclear. Methods: Relevant studies that were published from January 1, 2019 to September 19, 2020 were identified through the systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. Quality assessment of included studies, random-effects meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and planned subgroup analysis were performed. Results: A total of 23 studies conducted with 20,569 participants during the COVID-19 pandemic and with 3,677 pregnant women before the COVID-19 pandemic were included. The prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and insomnia among pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic were 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25-49%), 31% (95% CI 20-42%), 70% (95% CI 60-79%), and 49% (95% CI 46-52%), respectively. The prevalence of postpartum depression was 22% (95% CI 15-29%). Multigravida women and women in the first and third trimesters of pregnancy were more vulnerable than other pregnant women. The assessment of the associations between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health problems revealed that the pooled relative risks of anxiety and depression in pregnant women were 1.65 (95% CI: 1.25-2.19) and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.80-1.46), respectively. Conclusions: The prevalence rates of mental disorders among pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic were high. Timely and tailored interventions should be applied to mitigate mental problems among this population of women, especially multigravida women and women in the first and third trimesters of pregnancy.
| S-EPMC7723850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe psychological, social, and economic stress in people's lives. It is not known whether the stress of the pandemic is associated with an increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy.ObjectiveTo determine the incidence and outcomes of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study at cardiac catheterization laboratories with primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability at 2 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic health system in Northeast Ohio examined the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy (also known as Takotsubo syndrome) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome who underwent coronary arteriography. Patients presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic, between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with 4 control groups of patients with acute coronary syndrome presenting prior to the pandemic across 4 distinct timelines: March to April 2018, January to February 2019, March to April 2019, and January to February 2020. Data were analyzed in May 2020.ExposuresPatients were divided into 5 groups based on the date of their clinical presentation in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence of stress cardiomyopathy.ResultsAmong 1914 patient presenting with acute coronary syndrome, 1656 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [59-74]; 1094 [66.1%] men) presented during the pre-COVID-19 period (390 patients in March-April 2018, 309 patients in January-February 2019, 679 patients in March-April 2019, and 278 patients in January-February 2020), and 258 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [57-75]; 175 [67.8%] men) presented during the COVID-19 pandemic period (ie, March-April 2020). There was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 period, with a total of 20 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion, 7.8%), compared with prepandemic timelines, which ranged from 5 to 12 patients with stress cardiomyopathy (incidence proportion range, 1.5%-1.8%). The rate ratio comparing the COVID-19 pandemic period to the combined prepandemic period was 4.58 (95% CI, 4.11-5.11; P < .001). All patients during the COVID-19 pandemic had negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test results for COVID-19. Patients with stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic had a longer median (interquartile range) hospital length of stay compared with those hospitalized in the prepandemic period (COVID-19 period: 8 [6-9] days; March-April 2018: 4 [3-4] days; January-February 2019: 5 [3-6] days; March-April 2019: 4 [4-8] days; January-February: 5 [4-5] days; P = .006). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 period and the overall pre-COVID-19 period in mortality (1 patient [5.0%] vs 1 patient [3.6%], respectively; P = .81) or 30-day rehospitalization (4 patients [22.2%] vs 6 patients [21.4%], respectively; P = .90).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that there was a significant increase in the incidence of stress cardiomyopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with prepandemic periods.
| S-EPMC7348683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effect of social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of pregnant women is of particular concern, given potential effects on physical health, family functioning, and child development.MethodsPregnant women were recruited for the "Implications of and Experiences Surrounding being Pregnant during the COVID-19 Pandemic" study at Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Participants enrolled at any point during their pregnancy and surveys were delivered weekly until the participant indicated that she had delivered her baby; a postpartum survey followed four weeks after delivery. This analysis includes 1037 participants with baseline, 596 with follow-up, and 302 with postpartum surveys. Questions on social distancing behaviors were asked at baseline and grouped based on whether they involved social distancing from work, friends and family, or public places. Symptoms of anxiety, stress, depression, and pregnancy-related anxiety were measured. Each type of social distancing was examined as a predictor of mental health using linear model with control for confounders.ResultsThe study population was largely white (84.1%), married (81.8%), and educated (76.2% with a bachelor's or higher degree). Women who were younger, Black, unmarried, or had less education or income reported fewer social distancing behaviors. Mean anxiety score in the highest quartile of overall social distancing was 8.3 (SD 5.6), while in the lowest quartile it was 6.0 (SD 5.0) (p < 0.01), while perceived stress postpartum and pregnancy-related stress were not associated with social distancing. Associations were substantially diminished when controlled for baseline levels of anxiety symptoms.ConclusionsGreater social distancing was associated with more anxiety symptoms, but worse mental health, particularly anxiety, may also have contributed to greater social distancing behaviors.
| S-EPMC10117246 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8143774 | biostudies-literature