No abstract

Background The existence of psychological distress (PD) during pregnancy is well established. Nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the PD and resilience of mothers and fathers during high-risk pregnancy. This study analyzes the differences between parents’ PD and resilience and the relation between them and the neurobehavioral performance of their SGA newborns. Methods This prospective study compares two groups of parents and newborns: case group (52 parents and 26 SGA fetuses) and comparison group (68 parents and 34 appropriate-for-gestational-age, AGA, fetuses). In each group, the parents were evaluated during the last trimester of pregnancy, to obtain standardized measures of depression, stress, anxiety, and resilience. At 40 ± 1 weeks corrected gestational age, psychologists evaluated the state of neonatal neuromaturity achieved. Results Multivariate analysis of variance showed, in gender comparisons, that mothers obtained higher scores than fathers for psychological distress but lower ones for resilience. Similar differences were obtained in the comparison of parents’ distress to intrauterine growth by SGA vs. AGA newborns. Mothers of SGA newborns were more distressed than the other groups. However, there were no differences between the fathers of SGA vs. AGA newborns. Regarding neurobehavioral performance, the profiles of SGA newborns reflected a lower degree of maturity than those of AGA newborns. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that high stress and low resilience among mothers partially predict low neurobehavioral performance in SGA newborns. Conclusions These findings indicate that mothers of SGA newborns may need psychological support to relieve stress and improve their resilience. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the neurobehavioral performance of their babies in case early attention is needed.

Obstetricians should monitor fetal growth closely in pregnancies with SUA, and be alert to NRFHR during labor and delivery.

The use of probiotic microorganisms in clinical practice has increased in recent years and a significant number of pregnant women are regular consumers of these products. However, probiotics might modulate the immune system, and whether or not this modulation is beneficial for perinatal outcomes is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the reporting of perinatal outcomes in randomized controlled trials including women supplemented with probiotic microorganisms during pregnancy. We also analyzed the effects that the administration of probiotic microorganisms exerts on perinatal outcomes. In the review, 46 papers were included and 25 were meta-analyzed. Reporting of perinatal outcomes was highly inconsistent across the studies. Only birth weight, cesarean section, and weeks of gestation were reported in more than 50% of the studies. Random effects meta-analysis results showed that the administration of probiotic microorganisms during pregnancy did not have any a positive or negative impact on the perinatal outcomes evaluated. Subgroup analysis results at the strain level were not significantly different from main analysis results. The administration of probiotic microorganisms does not appear to influence perinatal outcomes. Nonetheless, future probiotic studies conducted in pregnant women should report probiotic strains and perinatal outcomes in order to shed light upon probiotics’ effects on pregnancy outcomes.

Background Previous studies in pregnancy have not focused in evaluating the effect of walking during pregnancy and prevention of insomnia. Our general objective is to determine the effect of a walking program in preventing the appearance of insomnia in the third trimester of pregnancy, increasing sleep quality and improving quality of life throughout pregnancy. Methods Randomized Controlled trial in parallel in healthy sedentary pregnant women (n = 265), Walking_Preg Project (WPP), from university hospital in Granada, Spain. At 12th gestational week (GW), they will be invited to participate and randomly assigned to one of the three arms of study: the intervention group I1 (pedometer, goal of 11,000 steps/day), intervention group I2 (pedometer, no goal) and control (no pedometer). Duration of intervention: 13–32 GW. At 12th, 19th and 31st GW the average steps/day will be measured in groups I1 and I2. At 13th, 20th and 32nd GW, Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Adherence to Mediterranean Diet (AMD), physical activity (short IPAQ), quality of life (PSI), and consumption of toxic substances (caffeine, illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco) will be collected. Student t test or Mann-Whitney U will be used to compare 19th and 31st GW mean of daily steps between I1 and I2 groups. To compare differences between groups in terms of frequency of insomnia/quality of life for each trimester of pregnancy, Pearson’s Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test will be used. To determine differences in hours of sleep and quality of sleep throughout each trimester of pregnancy, analysis of variance or Friedman test will be used. McNemar-Bowker test will be used to assess differences in life quality in pre-post analyses in the 3 arms. We will use Stata 15 statistical software. Discussion promoting walking in second half of pregnancy through use of pedometer and health pre-registration of a goal to be achieved –'10,000–11,000 steps a day’– should prevent appearance of insomnia in third trimester, will increase sleep quality and quality of life in pregnant women. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03735381. Registered 8th November, 2018.