COVID-19 is associated with poor maternal and pregnancy outcomes. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended in Spain, yet vaccination rates in pregnancy are suboptimal. This study investigates the perceptions of pregnant women and healthcare workers (HCW) regarding COVID-19 vaccination. A web-based cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted in 2021-2022 among 302 pregnant women and 309 HCWs in the Catalan public health system. Most pregnant women (83%) and HCWs (86%) were aware of COVID-19 maternal vaccines. The recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccination by an HCW was identified as the greatest facilitator for maternal vaccine uptake, while the fear of harming the foetus was the most significant barrier reported for rejecting vaccination. HCWs recognised they received limited information and training about COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, which hindered them from providing informed recommendations. This study highlights that information and education on COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women and health professionals are pivotal to ensuring informed decision-making and increasing vaccine uptake.

Background
A birth plan (BP) is a written document in which the pregnant woman explains her wishes and expectations about childbirth to the health professionals and aims to facilitate her decision-making. Midwives’ support to women during the development of the BP is essential, but it’s unknown if shared decision making (SDM) is effective in birth plan counselling. We hypothesized that women who receive counselling based on SDM during their pregnancy are more likely to present their BP to the hospital, more satisfied with the childbirth experience, and have better obstetric outcomes than women who receive standard counselling. We also aimed to identify if women who presented BP to the hospital have better obstetric outcomes and more satisfied with the childbirth experience.
Methods
This was a randomised cluster trial involving four Primary Care Units. Midwives provided BP counselling based on SDM to the women in the intervention group (IG) during their pregnancy, along with a leaflet with evidence-based recommendations. Women in the control group (CG) only received the standard birth plan counselling from midwives. The primary outcomes were birth plan presentation to the hospital, obstetrics outcomes and satisfaction with childbirth experience. The Mackey Satisfaction with Childbirth Scale (MCSRS) was used to measure childbirth satisfaction.
Results
A total of 461 (95.5%) pregnant women received BP counselling (IG n = 214 and CG n = 247). Fewer women in the intervention group presented their BP to the hospital compared to those in the control group (57.8% vs 75.1%; p <0.001). Mean satisfaction with childbirth experience was high in the IG as well as the CG: 150.2 (SD:22.6) vs. 153.4 (SD:21.8); p = 0.224). The information received about childbirth during pregnancy was high in both groups (95.1% vs 94.8%; p = 1.0). Fewer women in the IG used analgesia epidural compared to those in the CG (84.7% vs 91.7%; p = 0.034); women who combined non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods for pain relief were more in number in the IG (48.9% vs 29.5%; p = 0.001) and women who began breastfeeding in the delivery room were more in number in the IG (83.9% vs 66.3%; p = 0.001). Women who presented their BP had a greater probability of using combined non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods for pain relief aOR = 2.06 (95% CI: 1.30-4.30) and early skin-to-skin contact aOR = 2.08 (95% CI: 1.07-4.04). Conclusion This counselling intervention was not effective to increase the presentation of the BP to the hospital and women's satisfaction with childbirth; however, it was related to a lower usage of analgesia epidural, a higher combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods for pain relief and the initiation of breastfeeding in the delivery room. Presenting the BP to the hospital increased the likelihood of using pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods for pain relief, and early skin-to-skin contact.

The COVID-19 pandemic currently affects populations worldwide. Although everyone is susceptible to the virus, there are numerous accounts of the pandemic having a greater impact on lower socioeconomic groups and minorities, which is a ubiquitous phenomenon. It is essential for public health administrations and governments to uncover and understanding these inequities to develop proper intersectoral policies to tackle this crisis. Therefore, developing a conceptual framework on this topic, describing the social mechanisms that explain the unjust distribution of the incidence and mortality of COVID-19, is a key task. The aim of this paper is to adapt the framework on social determinants of health from the World Health Organization to the specifics of COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it identifies and explains the structural and intermediate determinants involved in this pandemic, and adds some new elements (such as the role of the oppression systems and communication) which may help to understand, and ultimately tackle, social inequities in COVID-19 distribution. (C) 2021 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major cause of childhood disabilities, and consensus recommendations emphasize the importance of hygienic measures to reduce perinatal infection. Our study aimed to evaluate the level of awareness about CMV among health professionals and pregnant women. Methods: We submitted a 20-item online survey regarding CMV perinatal infection to all obstetricians and midwives in Catalonia (Spain) and a 7-item lay version of the questionnaire to 700 pregnant women. Levels of knowledge were compared among groups. Results: Of the 1,449 health professionals approached, 338 surveys were answered. 72% of professionals considered CMV a relevant problem. 47% of obstetricians and 28% of midwives (p <= 0.001) routinely informed pregnant women, and less than half knew the risk of fetal transmission. We observed significant differences in knowledge between obstetricians and midwives concerning the risks of recurrent infections, risk of transmission, and risk of severe infection (60.7% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.006 and 50.6% vs. 22.5%, p <= 0.001); and regarding maternal and neonatal symptoms and newborn sequelae (23% vs. 8.8%, p <= 0.001). Of the 700 women approached, we obtained a response rate of 72%. Only 23% had previously heard about CMV, 22% identified transmission routes, and 15% preventive measures. Compared to women without risk factors for CMV infection, women at greater risk had heard more about CMV (mothers of children <3 years: 36% vs. 20%, p < 0.001; occupational exposure: 43% vs. 20%, p <= 0.001) and had received more information (mothers of children <3 years: 18% vs. 9.5%, p <= 0.001; occupational exposure: 23% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Health care professionals have limited knowledge about CMV and may fail to enforce preventive measures. While pregnant women have limited awareness about CMV infection, they recognize the need for information. Health campaigns should be promoted to enhance awareness about this perinatal infection.