Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10216/151595
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorLazzerini, M
dc.creatorValente, EP
dc.creatorCovi, B
dc.creatorRozée, V
dc.creatorCosta, R
dc.creatorOtelea, MR
dc.creatorAbderhalden-Zellweger, A
dc.creatorWęgrzynowska, M
dc.creatorLinden, K
dc.creatorArendt, M
dc.creatorBrigidi, S
dc.creatorMiani, C
dc.creatorPumpure, E
dc.creatorRadetic, J
dc.creatorDrandic, D
dc.creatorCerimagic, A
dc.creatorNedberg, I
dc.creatorLiepinaitienė, A
dc.creatorRodrigues, C
dc.creatorde Labrusse, C
dc.creatorBaranowska, B
dc.creatorZaigham, M
dc.creatorCastañeda, L
dc.creatorBatram-Zantvoort, S
dc.creatorJakovicka, D
dc.creatorRuzicic, J
dc.creatorJuciūtė, S
dc.creatorSantos, T
dc.creatorGemperle, M
dc.creatorTataj-Puzyna, U
dc.creatorElden, H
dc.creatorMizgaitienė, M
dc.creatorLincetto, O
dc.creatorSacks, E
dc.creatorMariani, I
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-02T09:07:47Z-
dc.date.available2023-08-02T09:07:47Z-
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn1879-3479
dc.identifier.issn0020-7292
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10216/151595-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To explore the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic by facility type among 16 European countries, comparing rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean. Methods: Women who gave birth in the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020, to February 7, 2022, answered a validated online questionnaire. Rates of instrumental birth, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean, and a QMNC index were calculated for births in public versus private facilities. Results: Responses from 25 206 participants were analyzed. Women giving birth in private compared with public facilities reported significantly more frequent total cesarean (32.5% vs 19.0%; aOR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52–1.90), elective cesarean (17.3% vs 7.8%; aOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.65–2.19), and emergency cesarean before labor (7.4% vs 3.9%; aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14–1.70) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), with analyses by country confirming these results. QMNC index results were heterogeneous across countries and regions in the same country and were largely affected by geographical distribution of regions rather than by type of facility alone. Conclusion: The study confirms that births in private facilities have higher odds of cesarean. It also suggests that QMNC should be closely monitored in all facilities to achieve high-quality care, independent of facility type or geographical distribution. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336. © 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
dc.description.sponsorshipFunding text 1: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy. We would like to thank all the women who took the time to respond to this survey despite the burden of the COVID‐19 pandemic, and Dr. Manuela Giangreco—Institute of Maternal and Child Health IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy—for reviewing the methodology in this manuscript. Special thanks to the IMAgiNE EURO study group for their contribution to the development of this project and support for this manuscript. ; Funding text 2: RC was supported by the Social European Fund and Foundation for Science and Technology under a Post‐Doctoral Grant (SFRH/BPD/117597/2016). EPIUnit (UIDB/04750/2020), ITR (LA/P/0064/2020), and HEI‐LAB (UIDB/05380/2020) are financed by the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. ; Funding text 3: This work was supported by the Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy, in collaboration with the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy. We would like to thank all the women who took the time to respond to this survey despite the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Dr. Manuela Giangreco—Institute of Maternal and Child Health IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy—for reviewing the methodology in this manuscript. Special thanks to the IMAgiNE EURO study group for their contribution to the development of this project and support for this manuscript.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDB/05380/2020/PT
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDB/04750/2020/PT
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/POR_NORTE/SFRH/BPD/117597/2016/PT
dc.relation.ispartofInt J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Dec;159 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):22-38. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14458.
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectCOVID-19; IMAgiNE EURO; maternal; newborn; private; public; quality of care; respectful maternity care; WHO standards
dc.titleRates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean and quality of maternal and newborn health care in private versus public facilities: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 16 countries
dc.typeArtigo em Revista Científica Internacional
dc.contributor.uportoInstituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ijgo.14458
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.14458
Appears in Collections:ISPUP - Artigo em Revista Científica Internacional

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
lazzerini-ijgo-2022.pdf2.03 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons