3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Rio De Janeiro City, Brazil

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective in reducing the risk of complications. However, the uptake is still below targets worldwide. This study aimed to explore the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake among pregnant women since data on this topic is scarce in low-to-middle-income countries. A retrospective cohort study included linked data on COVID-19 vaccination and pregnant women who delivered a singleton live birth from August 1, 2021, to July 31, 2022, in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with vaccination during pregnancy, applying a hierarchical model and describing odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Of 65,304 pregnant women included in the study, 53.0% (95% CI, 52–53%) received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Higher uptake was observed among women aged older than 34 (aOR 1.21, 95%CI 1.15–1.28), black (aOR 1.10, 1.04–1.16), or parda/brown skin colour (aOR 1.05, 1.01–1.09), with less than eight years of education (aOR 1.09, 1.02–1.17), living without a partner (aOR 2.24, 2.16–2.34), more than six antenatal care appointments (aOR 1.92, 1.75–2.09), and having a previous child loss (OR 1.06, 1.02–1.11). These results highlight the need for targeted educational campaigns, trustful communication, and accessibility strategies for specific populations to improve vaccination uptake during pregnancy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          COVID-19 in Brazil: “So what?”

          The Lancet (2020)
          The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reached Latin America later than other continents. The first case recorded in Brazil was on Feb 25, 2020. But now, Brazil has the most cases and deaths in Latin America (105 222 cases and 7288 deaths as of May 4), and these are probably substantial underestimates. Even more worryingly, the doubling of the rate of deaths is estimated at only 5 days and a recent study by Imperial College (London, UK), which analysed the active transmission rate of COVID-19 in 48 countries, showed that Brazil is the country with the highest rate of transmission (R0 of 2·81). Large cities such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are the main hotspots now but there are concerns and early signs that infections are moving inland into smaller cities with inadequate provisions of intensive care beds and ventilators. Yet, perhaps the biggest threat to Brazil's COVID-19 response is its president, Jair Bolsonaro. When asked by journalists last week about the rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 cases, he responded: “So what? What do you want me to do?” He not only continues to sow confusion by openly flouting and discouraging the sensible measures of physical distancing and lockdown brought in by state governors and city mayors but has also lost two important and influential ministers in the past 3 weeks. First, on April 16, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, the respected and well liked Health Minister, was sacked after a television interview, in which he strongly criticised Bolsonaro's actions and called for unity, or else risk leaving the 210 million Brazilians utterly confused. Then on April 24, following the removal of the head of Brazil's federal police by Bolsonaro, Justice Minister Sérgio Moro, one of the most powerful figures of the right-wing government and appointed by Bolsonaro to combat corruption, announced his resignation. Such disarray at the heart of the administration is a deadly distraction in the middle of a public health emergency and is also a stark sign that Brazil's leadership has lost its moral compass, if it ever had one. Even without the vacuum of political actions at federal level, Brazil would have a difficult time to combat COVID-19. About 13 million Brazilians live in favelas, often with more than three people per room and little access to clean water. Physical distancing and hygiene recommendations are near impossible to follow in these environments—many favelas have organised themselves to implement measures as best as possible. Brazil has a large informal employment sector with many sources of income no longer an option. The Indigenous population has been under severe threat even before the COVID-19 outbreak because the government has been ignoring or even encouraging illegal mining and logging in the Amazon rainforest. These loggers and miners now risk bringing COVID-19 to remote populations. An open letter on May 3 by a global coalition of artists, celebrities, scientists, and intellectuals, organised by the Brazilian photojournalist Sebastião Salgado, warns of an impending genocide. What are the health and science community and civil society doing in a country known for its activism and outspoken opposition to injustice and inequity and with health as a constitutional right? Many scientific organisations, such as the Brazilian Academy of Sciences and ABRASCO, have long-opposed Bolsonaro because of severe cuts in the science budget and a more general demolition of social security and public services. In the context of COVID-19, many organisations have launched manifestos aimed at the public—such as Pact for Life and Brazil—and written statements and pleas to government officials calling for unity and joined up solutions. Pot-banging from balconies as protest during presidential announcements happens frequently. There is much research going on, from basic science to epidemiology, and there is rapid production of personal protective equipment, respirators, and testing kits. These are hopeful actions. Yet, leadership at the highest level of government is crucial in quickly averting the worst outcome of this pandemic, as is evident from other countries. In our 2009 Brazil Series, the authors concluded: “The challenge is ultimately political, requiring continuous engagement by Brazilian society as a whole to secure the right to health for all Brazilian people.” Brazil as a country must come together to give a clear answer to the “So what?” by its President. He needs to drastically change course or must be the next to go. © 2020 Bruna Prado/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy: Coverage and Safety

            Background Concerns have been raised regarding a potential surge of COVID-19 in pregnancy, secondary to rising numbers of COVID-19 in the community, easing of societal restrictions, and vaccine hesitancy. Even though COVID-19 vaccination is now offered to all pregnant women in the UK, there are limited data on its uptake and safety. Objectives and study design : This was a cohort study of pregnant women who gave birth at St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, between March 1 st and July 4 th 2021. The primary outcome was uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and its determinants. The secondary outcomes were perinatal safety outcomes. Data were collected on COVID-19 vaccination uptake, vaccination type, gestational age at vaccination, as well as maternal characteristics including age, parity, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation score and co-morbidities. Further data were collected on perinatal outcomes including stillbirth (fetal death ≥24 weeks’ gestation), preterm birth, fetal/congenital abnormalities and intrapartum complications. Pregnant women who received the vaccine were compared with a matched cohort of propensity balanced pregnant women to compare outcomes. Effect magnitudes of vaccination on perinatal outcomes were reported as mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Factors associated with antenatal vaccination were assessed with logistic regression analysis. Results Data were available for 1328 pregnant women of whom 141 received at least one dose of vaccine before giving birth and 1187 women who did not; 85.8% of those vaccinated received their vaccine in the third trimester and 14.2% in the second trimester. Of those vaccinated, 128 (90.8%) received an mRNA vaccine and 13 (9.2%) a viral vector vaccine. There was evidence of reduced vaccine uptake in younger women (P=0.002), those with high levels of deprivation (i.e., fifth quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation, P=0.008) and women of Afro-Caribbean or Asian ethnicity, compared to Caucasian ethnicity (P<0.001). Women with pre-pregnancy diabetes had increased vaccine uptake (P=0.008). In the multivariable model adjusting for variables that had a significant effect according to the univariable analysis, fifth deprivation quintile (most deprived) was significantly associated with lower antenatal vaccine uptake (adjusted OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–0.39, P=0.002), while pre-pregnancy diabetes was significantly associated with higher antenatal vaccine uptake (adjusted OR 11.1, 95% CI 2.01–81.6, P=0.008). In a propensity score matched cohort, compared with non-vaccinated pregnant women, 133 women who received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy (vs. those unvaccinated) had similar rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes (P>0.05 for all): stillbirth (0.0% vs 0.3%), fetal abnormalities (2.2% vs 2.7%), intrapartum pyrexia (3.7% vs 1.5%), postpartum hemorrhage (9.8% vs 9.5%), cesarean section (30.8% vs. 30.6%), small for gestational age (12.0% vs 15.8%), maternal high dependency unit or intensive care admission (6.0% vs 3.5%) or neonatal intensive care unit admission (5.3% vs 5.4%). Mixed-effects Cox regression showed that vaccination was not significantly associated with birth <40 weeks’ gestation (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.71–1.23, P=0.630). Conclusions Of pregnant women eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, less than one third accepted COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and they experienced similar pregnancy outcomes. There was lower uptake among younger women, non-white ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic background. This study contributes to the body of evidence that having COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy does not alter perinatal outcomes. Clear communication to improve awareness among pregnant women and healthcare professionals on vaccine safety is needed, alongside strategies to address vaccine hesitancy. This includes post-vaccination surveillance to gather further data on pregnancy outcomes, particularly after first trimester vaccination, as well as long-term infant follow-up.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination rates in pregnant women in Scotland

              Population-level data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are lacking. We describe COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women in Scotland, using whole-population data from a national, prospective cohort. Between the start of a COVID-19 vaccine program in Scotland, on 8 December 2020 and 31 October 2021, 25,917 COVID-19 vaccinations were given to 18,457 pregnant women. Vaccine coverage was substantially lower in pregnant women than in the general female population of 18−44 years; 32.3% of women giving birth in October 2021 had two doses of vaccine compared to 77.4% in all women. The extended perinatal mortality rate for women who gave birth within 28 d of a COVID-19 diagnosis was 22.6 per 1,000 births (95% CI 12.9−38.5; pandemic background rate 5.6 per 1,000 births; 452 out of 80,456; 95% CI 5.1−6.2). Overall, 77.4% (3,833 out of 4,950; 95% CI 76.2−78.6) of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 90.9% (748 out of 823; 95% CI 88.7−92.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with hospital admission and 98% (102 out of 104; 95% CI 92.5−99.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with critical care admission, as well as all baby deaths, occurred in pregnant women who were unvaccinated at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                moarasb@ufg.br
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                25 October 2023
                25 October 2023
                2023
                : 13
                : 18235
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.411195.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2192 5801, Instituto de Patologia Tropical e Saúde Pública da Universidade Federal de Goiás, ; Goiânia, 74605-050 Brazil
                [2 ]GRID grid.411195.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2192 5801, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade Federal de Goiás, ; Goiânia, 74605-050 Brazil
                [3 ]Centro de Integração de Dados e Conhecimento para Saúde (CIDACS), Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, ( https://ror.org/04jhswv08) Salvador, 40296-710 Brazil
                [4 ]Secretaria Municipal de Saúde, ( https://ror.org/05355vt65) Rio de Janeiro, 20211-110 Brazil
                [5 ]Departamento de Epidemiologia, Instituto de Medicina Social, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, ( https://ror.org/0198v2949) Rio de Janeiro, 20550-013 Brazil
                [6 ]Instituto de Estudos em Saúde Coletiva, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, ( https://ror.org/03490as77) Rio de Janeiro, 21941-592 Brazil
                [7 ]Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, ( https://ror.org/00a0jsq62) London, WC1E 7HT UK
                [8 ]Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde e Ambiente, Ministério da Saúde, ( https://ror.org/02y7p0749) Brasília, 70723-040 Brazil
                [9 ]Núcleo de Medicina Tropical, Universidade de Brasília, Escola de Governo Fiocruz Brasília, ( https://ror.org/02xfp8v59) Brasília, 70904-130 Brazil
                [10 ]Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal da Bahia, ( https://ror.org/03k3p7647) Salvador, 40110-100 Brazil
                Article
                44370
                10.1038/s41598-023-44370-6
                10600223
                37880238
                1fbf91d9-9f59-43ed-b3b1-c7723e416e03
                © Springer Nature Limited 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 June 2023
                : 7 October 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002322, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006507, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz;
                Funded by: Welcome Trust
                Award ID: 213589/Z/18/Z
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Limited 2023

                Uncategorized
                vaccines,health policy,epidemiology,viral infection
                Uncategorized
                vaccines, health policy, epidemiology, viral infection

                Comments

                Comment on this article