Improving prenatal care during lockdown: Comparing telehealth and in-person care for low-risk pregnant women in the PROTECT pilot study

Léonore Avercenc, Willy Ngueyon Sime, Charline Bertholdt, Sophie Baumont, Andréia Carvalho de Freitas, Olivier Morel, Francis Guillemin, Gaëlle Ambroise Grandjean, Léonore Avercenc, Willy Ngueyon Sime, Charline Bertholdt, Sophie Baumont, Andréia Carvalho de Freitas, Olivier Morel, Francis Guillemin, Gaëlle Ambroise Grandjean

Abstract

Objective: to compare telehealth and in-person care during the COVID-19 lockdown in a population of low-risk pregnant women for prenatal care received and perinatal outcome.

Methods: This single-center study began during the first French lockdown in 2020. Women with at least one telehealth (remote) prenatal care visit were compared with those who received care only in person. Data include results from self-administered surveys and perinatal outcomes. The main outcome was the prenatal care experience, assessed by the 5-point Quality of Prenatal Care Questionnaire (QPCQ) score. Exploratory analyses sought to identify connections between perinatal outcomes and any of their levels of QPCQ score, health/eHealth literacy, stress, and social deprivation scores .

Results: The experimental group included 55 women and the control group 52. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. The mean QPCQ scores did not support any difference between the mothers' experience of prenatal care in each group: 4.15±0.52 in the telehealth and 4.26±0.63 in the in-person groups. Similarly, levels of social deprivation, stress, and health and eHealth literacy did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion: Regardless of social deprivation or literacy level, both telehealth and in-person monitoring appeared to provide equivalent and good-quality prenatal care experiences during the pandemic, ClinicalTrial.gov registration NCT04368832 (30th April 2020).

Keywords: Covid19; Pregnancy; Prenatal follow-up; Telehealth.

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PROTECT Study flow chart *QPCQ Quality of Prenatal Care Questionnaire.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Hospital stays initial reason for referral within PROTECT participants (day hospitalizations & conventional stays) *FGR Fetal growth restriction.

References

    1. Haute Autorité de Santé. Suivi et orientation des femmes enceintes en fonction des situations à risque identifiées [Online] [29 janv 2021.
    1. Haute Autorité de Santé. Préparation à la naissance et à la parentalité [Online][5 févr 2021,
    1. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). World Health Organization [Online]. [5 févr 2021.
    1. Bindra V. Telemedicine for women's health during COVID-19 pandemic in india: a short commentary and important practice points for obstetricians and gynaecologists. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2020;70:279‑82.
    1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [Online] [5 févr 2021,
    1. Nakagawa K, Umazume T, Mayama M, Chiba K, Saito Y, Kawaguchi S, et al. Feasibility and safety of urgently initiated maternal telemedicine in response to the spread of COVID-19: a 1-month report. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46:1967‑71.
    1. Downes MJ, Mervin MC, Byrnes JM, Scuffham PA. Telephone consultations for general practice: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:128.
    1. Van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, van Solinge WW, Lely AT, Franx A, et al. eHealth as the next-generation perinatal care: an overview of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e202.
    1. Van den Heuvel JFM, Kariman SS, van Solinge WW, Franx A, Lely AT, Bekker MN. SAFE@HOME - feasibility study of a telemonitoring platform combining blood pressure and preeclampsia symptoms in pregnancy care. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:226‑31.
    1. Schramm K, Grassl N, Nees J, Hoffmann J, Stepan H, Bruckner T, et al. Women's attitudes toward self-monitoring of their pregnancy using noninvasive electronic devices: cross-sectional multicenter study. JMIR. 2019;7:e1458.
    1. Dol J, Richardson B, Tomblin Murphy G, Aston M, McMillan D, Campbell-Yeo M. Impact of mobile health (mHealth) interventions during the perinatal period for mothers in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2019;17:1634‑67.
    1. Heaman MI, Sword WA, Akhtar-Danesh N, Bradford A, Tough S, Janssen PA, et al. Quality of prenatal care questionnaire: instrument development and testing. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:188.
    1. Sword W, Heaman M, Peterson WE, Salvador A, Akhtar-Danesh N, Bradford-Janke A. Psychometric testing of the French language quality of prenatal care questionnaire. J Nurs Meas. 2015;23:436‑51.
    1. Nunes RD, Parma GC, Campos AC de, Locatelli P, Traebert J. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the quality of prenatal care questionnaire (QPCQ) Rev Saude Publica. 2018;53:01.
    1. Sword W, Heaman M, Biro MA, Homer C, Yelland J, Akhtar-Danesh N, et al. Quality of prenatal care questionnaire: psychometric testing in an Australia population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:214.
    1. Arun Babu T, Sharmila V, Vishnu Bhat B. Curious scenario of changes in incidence of preterm births during COVID-19 pandemic. Pointers for future research? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;253:333‑4.
    1. Comeau N. COVID-19 fears may widen gaps in early pregnancy care. CMAJ. 2020;192:E870.
    1. Goyal M, Singh P, Singh K, Shekhar S, Agrawal N, Misra S. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal health due to delay in seeking health care: experience from a tertiary center. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021;152:231–235.
    1. Liu X, Chen M, Wang Y, Sun L, Zhang J, Shi Y, et al. Prenatal anxiety and obstetric decisions among pregnant women in Wuhan and Chongqing during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;127:1229‑40.
    1. Zhang J, Zhang Y, Huo S, Ma Y, Ke Y, Wang P, et al. Emotional eating in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with dietary intake and gestational weight gain. Nutrients. 2020;12(8)
    1. InVS | BEH n°14 2006. Le score Epices : un score individuel de précarité. [Online]. [20 juill 2021],
    1. Hawkins M, Gill SD, Batterham R, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. The Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) at the patient-clinician interface: a qualitative study of what patients and clinicians mean by their HLQ scores. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:309.
    1. Kayser L, Karnoe A, Furstrand D, Batterham R, Christensen KB, Elsworth G, et al. A multidimensional tool based on the ehealth literacy framework: development and initial validity testing of the ehealth literacy questionnaire (eHLQ) J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e36.
    1. Jeganathan S, Prasannan L, Blitz MJ, Vohra N, Rochelson B, Meirowitz N. Adherence and acceptability of telehealth appointments for high-risk obstetrical patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020;2
    1. Chatwin J, Butler D, Jones J, James L, Choucri L, McCarthy R. Experiences of pregnant mothers using a social media based antenatal support service during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK: findings from a user survey. BMJ Open. 2021;11

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren