The World Health Organization (WHO) identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health in 2019. Health promotion and education have been seen to improve knowledge and uptake of vaccinations in pregnancy. This qualitative study was conducted based on phenomenology, a methodological approach to understand first-hand experiences, and grounded theory, an inductive approach to analyse data, where theoretical generalisations emerge. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with pregnant women attending antenatal care services and healthcare workers (HCWs) in Barcelona, Spain. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded, and notes were taken. Inductive thematic analysis was performed, and data were manually coded. Pertussis was reported as the most trusted vaccine among pregnant women due to its long-standing background as a recommended vaccine in pregnancy. The influenza vaccine was regarded as less important since it was perceived to cause mild disease. The COVID-19 vaccine was the least trustworthy for pregnant women due to uncertainties about effectiveness, health effects in the mid- and long-term, the fast development of the vaccine mRNA technology, and the perceptions of limited data on vaccine safety. However, the necessity to be vaccinated was justified by pregnant women due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The recommendations provided by HCW and the established relationship between the HCW, particularly midwives, and pregnant women were the main factors affecting decision-making. The role of mass media was perceived as key to helping provide reliable messages about the need for vaccines during pregnancy. Overall, vaccines administered during pregnancy were perceived as great tools associated with better health and improved quality of life. Pregnancy was envisioned as a vulnerable period in women’s lives that required risk-benefits assessments for decision-making about maternal vaccinations. A holistic approach involving the community and society was considered crucial for health education regarding maternal vaccines in support of the work conducted by HCWs.

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.

Since countries and their institutions began to feel overwhelmed by COVID-19, it has not been surprising to hear the complaints, ailments and discomforts of millions of people who have experienced significant emotional and material losses. It has been a cluster of factors that have been crossed by biological, socioeconomic and cultural phenomena, interconnected with each other, and that have become structural. Despite the broad contribution of the scientific field to the study of this phenomenon, the different disciplines in general, and those from the Social Sciences in particular, have had little participation and opportunities for communication and research. A good indicator to assess the priorities regarding the generation of knowledge is to observe the number of relevant publications and total citations, among which biomedical ones stand out . This invites a tremendously necessary debate since, considering the complexity of the phenomenon, we wonder why it has not been proportional to the collaboration of the different disciplines when considering its approach.

The coverage of maternal vaccination against pertussis and, particularly, influenza is lower than expected. The lack of recommendation from healthcare providers conditions non-vaccination in pregnant women. The purpose was to determine the knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and practices of midwives regarding maternal influenza and pertussis vaccination. A qualitative descriptive study based on semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with seventeen midwives was conducted, including purposive sampling and thematic analyses. Midwives had disparate knowledge and perceptions about the severity of influenza and pertussis in pregnant women, and influenza was not considered very serious. The vaccines were generally considered safe. However, because midwives did not have enough information about the safety of the influenza vaccine, there was a tendency not to recommend it. While most midwives had a positive attitude toward vaccination, their advocation for vaccination against influenza was not as clear as it was for pertussis. Not wanting to influence the decision and assuming an informative-facilitating role also led providers to recommend the influenza vaccine less frequently. Midwives are among the main sources of professional advice for pregnant women. Addressing their understanding and professional practices regarding maternal vaccination is key to change the attitude of pregnant women and thus increase vaccine uptake among them, particularly for influenza.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in undiagnosed young people aged between 15 and 24 years.
Materials and Methods: A convenience sample of 623 youths, with a mean (SD) age of 20.1 (2.2) years, was recruited from key spaces in the North Metropolitan area of Barcelona in Catalonia, Spain. Participants completed a 21-item questionnaire and provided a urine sample or vaginal swab for testing.
Results: Themost common age at the first sexual intercoursewas 16 years (24.6%), followed by 15 years (21.3%). Only 32.6% reported always use of condoms, 49.2% sometimes, and 15.6% never. A positive test for chlamydia was found in 34 participants (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.8-7.5), with no difference by sex. A positive test was significantly more common among the participants who were working, who had been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) at some point in their life, and who used web pages/apps to find new sexual partners more than once a month. In the multivariate analysis, working status was an independent factor associated with chlamydial infection (adjusted odds ratio[OR], 8.88; 95% CI, 1.71-46.17), whereas not having been previously diagnosed with an STD (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.07-1.49) and never using the Internet to find sexual partners (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-080) were protective factors against chlamydial infection.
Conclusions: The prevalence of C. trachomatis infection was 5.5%. Working status, a previous diagnosis of STD, and use of the Internet to find new sexual partners were associated with chlamydial test positivity.