Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women are vulnerable to both the ‘direct effects’ of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the ‘indirect effects’ of disruption of essential healthcare services and restrictions on social interaction. There is no evidence that pregnant women face an increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to non-pregnant women. However, there is evidence that women who experience a SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy may have higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality including preterm birth, preeclampsia, and emergency cesarean delivery; neonatal morbidity; and perinatal morbidity and mortality including stillbirth [1–4]. The most recent data from the UK Obstetric Surveillance System give a preterm birth rate of 21% and a cesarean birth rate of 43% for pregnant women who require admission to hospital with a SARS-CoV-2 infection [5].

There are reports that the impact of COVID-19 differs among ethnic and socioeconomic groups, with pregnant women from ethnic minority backgrounds more likely to be hospitalised [5]. Furthermore, the direct impact of the SARS-CoV-2 infection has been disproportionately high in ethnic minority groups and socioeconomically deprived communities [6].

The population-level impacts of the indirect effects of the pandemic on maternal and neonatal outcomes are, however, likely to be larger than direct effects of COVID-19 infection [7–9]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on the indirect effects of the pandemic on maternity outcomes found that in low- and middle-income settings, the pandemic period has been associated with an increase in maternal mortality and stillbirths [7]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence of such an association in high-income settings, and uncertainty remains about the broader impact of the pandemic.

Almost all available reports, with the exception of national data from the US, are restricted to the first 8 months of 2020 [7,10]. Consequently, there is little evidence regarding the indirect effects of the pandemic during the later months of 2020, when many women would have experienced changes to care and restrictions on social interaction for most or all of their pregnancy.

In this study, we used population-level data from England to examine the combined direct and indirect effects of the COVID-10 pandemic on mode of delivery and pregnancy outcomes. We compared obstetric intervention and pregnancy outcome rates in England during a defined ‘pandemic period’ (23 March 2020 to 22 February 2021, including 2 periods of national ‘lockdown’) with those during the corresponding pre-pandemic calendar period 1 year earlier (23 March 2019 to 22 February 2020) and tested whether differences in these rates varied according to ethnic and socioeconomic background.

During the pandemic period, there were major changes to healthcare delivery throughout the year [11]. For maternity care, there has been consistent national provision of rapid guidance and support from professional organisations to inform changes in service [12]. Changes were broadly similar to those seen across Europe, including increased use of remote consultation, reduced provision of out-of-hospital care and birth, and widespread restrictions on access for support partners [13].

Methods

Results

We identified 961,506 births in the English NHS during the pandemic period (23 March 2020 to 22 February 2021) and pre-pandemic period (23 March 2019 to 22 February 2020); 948,020 (98.6%) were singleton births. There was an overall 8.4% reduction in singleton births, from 493,293 in the pre-pandemic period to 451,727 in the pandemic period (S1 Fig). The characteristics of the women included were broadly similar in the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods (Table 1).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Characteristics of pregnant women included in the study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003884.t001

The monthly stillbirth rates are presented in Fig 1. Compared with the corresponding pre-pandemic calendar periods (Table 2), there were no statistically significant differences in stillbirth rates during the entire pandemic period (0.37% versus 0.36% pre-pandemic, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02, p = 0.16), the first lockdown period (0.38% versus 0.35% in the same pre-pandemic calendar period, aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23, p = 0.24), or the second lockdown period (0.37% versus 0.38% in the same pre-pandemic calendar period, aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03, p = 0.18).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Study outcome rates by month in the pre-pandemic (April 2019–February 2020) and pandemic (April 2020–February 2021) periods.

(A) Stillbirth; (B) preterm birth; (C) small for gestational age (SGA); (D) induction of labour; (E) elective cesarean section (CS); (F) emergency CS; (G) instrumental birth; (H) unassisted birth; (I) prolonged maternal le ngth of stay; (J) maternal readmission. lci, 95% lower confidence interval; uci, 95% upper confidence interval.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003884.g001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Comparisons of outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown periods with the same periods in the previous year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003884.t002

Compared with corresponding pre-pandemic figures (Table 2), there was a small reduction in preterm birth rates during the entire pandemic period (6.0% versus 6.1% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.97, p < 0.001), the first lockdown period (5.9% versus 6.1% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99, p = 0.01), and the second lockdown period (6.1% versus 6.1% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99, p = 0.01).

Compared with the corresponding pre-pandemic periods, SGA rates were lower for the entire pandemic period (5.6% versus 5.8% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.96, p < 0.001) and for the second lockdown period (Fig 1; Table 2; 5.3% versus 5.9% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.92, p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference during the first lockdown period (5.8% versus 5.8% pre-pandemic, aOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04, p = 0.58).

Induction of labour rates were higher during the pandemic period overall (40.4% versus 39.1% pre-pandemic, aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.05, p < 0.001) and in the second lockdown period (40.8% versus 39.2%, aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.06, p < 0.001), but not in the first lockdown period (39.4% in both periods, aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, p = 0.24) (Fig 1; Table 2). Rates of elective and emergency cesarean section were higher overall in the pandemic period (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.14, and aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.08, respectively; both p < 0.001), primarily driven by the higher rates in the second lockdown period (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.21, and aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12, respectively; both p < 0.001). Instrumental births during the pandemic periods remained at similar levels to the corresponding pre-pandemic periods (Fig 1; Table 2).

The largest differences were seen for prolonged maternal length of stay (15.3% in the first lockdown versus 19.8% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.71, p < 0.001; 17.6% in the second lockdown versus 20.4% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85, p < 0.001) and maternal readmission (2.6% in the first lockdown versus 3.3% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.81, p < 0.001; 3.1% in the second lockdown versus 3.3% pre-pandemic, aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.95, p < 0.001) during the first and second lockdown periods compared to the corresponding pre-pandemic calendar periods. During the entire pandemic period, the rates of prolonged maternal length of stay and readmission were also significantly lower than pre-pandemic rates (Fig 1; Table 2).

There was evidence that the differences in rates varied according to women’s ethnic background for preterm births, cesarean births, and unassisted births (S3 Table), although this variation according to ethnic background was always small. The preterm birth rate was lower for white women during the pandemic period (6.1% pre-pandemic versus 5.9% during pandemic), but increased slightly for women of ethnic minority backgrounds (6.2% pre-pandemic to 6.3% during pandemic, p-value for interaction = 0.03). There was a greater increase in the rate of emergency cesarean birth for women of ethnic minority backgrounds (19.7% pre-pandemic to 21.9% during pandemic) compared to white women (15.9% pre-pandemic to 17.1% during pandemic, p-value for interaction = 0.02). There was a greater reduction in unassisted births for women of ethnic minority backgrounds than for white women (p-value for interaction < 0.001). Otherwise, the differences were similar in women from white and ethnic minority backgrounds.

There was no evidence that the differences in intervention rates and pregnancy outcomes varied according to socioeconomic background (all p-values for interaction > 0.05; S4 Table).

Discussion

In this national study, we found that, overall, pregnancy outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic were similar to outcomes in the corresponding calendar period 1 year earlier. There were small decreases in preterm birth and SGA birth rates and small increases in induction of labour and elective and emergency cesarean section rates during the pandemic period. Furthermore, there were lower rates of prolonged maternal length of stay and 42-day readmission, especially during the first lockdown period. Lastly, there was some evidence of a slightly different pattern of results in women from ethnic minority backgrounds, with a small increase in existing differences in the rates of preterm birth, emergency cesarean section, and unassisted vaginal delivery.

Our study concurs with preliminary reports from the ONS that rates of stillbirth in England were unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic [10]. Moreover, we observed a lower number of singleton births overall during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period, a phenomenon also noted by the ONS. However, unlike the ONS, which uses national birth registration data, our study found a statistically significant reduction in the rates of preterm birth and babies born SGA.

These observed differences between population-level analyses of the same population may partly be attributable to our analysis being restricted to singleton births. While multiple births represent a minority of all births (1.4%) [25], over half of multiple pregnancies result in birth before 37 weeks’ gestation [26]. In addition, it cannot be excluded that those undergoing ‘selective fertility’ (e.g., women requiring assisted conception), were less likely to become pregnant during these early months of the pandemic periods, giving birth in the later pandemic periods that were not covered by earlier studies in the UK [27].

This study considers interventions and outcomes at the time of birth that may have been affected by circumstances at different points throughout pregnancy. For example, fetal growth (measured as the proportion of babies born SGA) will reflect not only the impact of COVID-19 restrictions and clinical care experienced during the entire antenatal period, but also guidance by national maternity initiatives to reduce preterm birth and stillbirth [28–31]. In addition, there is a pre-existing national trend towards an increase in induction of labour, and this change in practice may have affected the results that we report [32]. Unfortunately, the dataset used does not contain information about antenatal care, and therefore it is not possible to directly attribute changes in outcomes to changes that have occurred as a result of the pandemic.

The reduction in preterm birth rate during the pandemic period was also demonstrated in an earlier UK-based study reporting neonatal admission rates [33]. Possible mechanisms for the observed reduction in preterm birth include modified population behaviour, resulting in reduced exposure to other pathogens including influenza, lower levels of physical exercise, and reduced workplace stress [34,35]. Similar findings have been observed in the preterm birth rate in China, with the rate returning to pre-pandemic levels after pandemic restrictions on societal interactions were lifted [36,37]. Changes in clinical practice due to the pandemic, such as reductions in labour induction and cesarean birth at earlier gestational age—perhaps due to a reduction in the identification of fetal growth restriction or preeclampsia due to reduced in-person appointments—could have also contributed to lower rates of preterm births [33].

During the pandemic period, our study population experienced higher rates of interventions including induction of labour and elective and emergency cesarean birth. To the best of our knowledge, similar findings have not been reported by other studies [38–40]. Although it is difficult to unpick the complex relationship between all factors influencing maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that our findings of increased interventions are partially attributable to the centralisation of maternity services, including closure of midwife-led birth settings, which are associated with reduced interventions for women at low risk of complications [13,41,42]. Other potential explanations are that changes in care-seeking behaviour amongst pregnant women and an increase in virtual appointments may have created delays in the diagnosis of adverse conditions, which may have led in turn to missed opportunities for conservative management. Also, there may also have been a change in clinician behaviour towards a lower threshold for interventions in order to expedite births and to avoid emergency situations. Lastly, occupational stress and burnout among maternity staff could also be associated with a more interventionist approach [43].

Our results show a reduction in prolonged maternal hospital stays, a finding supported by other studies [44–46]; early discharge from the hospital may have been initiated by either the clinician or the woman to reduce the perceived risk of infection associated with hospital stay, or to reunite with family members unable to visit maternity units. Rates of maternal readmission were also reduced during the pandemic period, which may reflect that women were less likely to seek care for postpartum issues.

There is evidence from other clinical areas that people with ethnic minority backgrounds and those from more deprived communities were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [6,47,48]. Our results demonstrate little variation according to women’s ethnic background in the differences associated with the pandemic periods. This may be explained by recommendations from UK midwifery and obstetric professional bodies to be particularly attentive to women in these groups, given that they are considered to be at higher risk of complications from COVID-19 [12].

The main strengths of this study are its large size, with the study including almost all births in England over a period of almost 2 years, covering periods of high COVID-19 prevalence in the UK and capturing significant events along the pandemic timeline. HES data are well-established and have previously been used for national comparisons of maternity care [49]. The clinical and patient demographic information in HES (for both maternity and further inpatient episodes after birth) allowed for a broader range of maternity care and neonatal outcomes to be compared across COVID-19 periods than previous studies exploring the combined direct and indirect effects of the pandemic [7,39]. Access to individual data for each woman and infant, rather than national aggregate data, enabled comparison of differences in intervention and outcome rates according to women’s ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

This study reports the differences in the rates of a number of interventions and outcomes between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, also exploring whether these differences varied according to ethnic and socioeconomic background. These multiple comparisons, increasing the chance of false-positive results, should be taken into account, especially when interpreting small but statistically significant differences [50].

Our study raises questions about the potential associations between societal and care changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and maternal and perinatal outcomes. The pandemic can be regarded as a natural experiment in which many aspects of care and behaviour changed simultaneously. Our results suggest that these changes may have led to reductions in the rate of preterm and SGA birth as well as increases in obstetric intervention rates. All this requires further investigation, particularly as similar results have not, to the best of our knowledge, been seen in other high-income settings [7].

Supporting information