No abstract

Objective. To assess the use of cell phones and email as means of communication between pregnant women and their gynecologists and family physicians. Study Design. A cross-sectional study of pregnant women at routine followup. One hundred and twenty women participated in the study. Results. The mean age was 27.4 ± 3.4 years. One hundred nineteen women owned a cell phone and 114 (95%) had an email address. Seventy-two women (60%) had their gynecologist's cell phone number and 50 women (42%) had their family physician's cell phone number. More women contacted their gynecologist via cell phone or email during pregnancy compared to their family physician (P = 0.005 and 0.009, resp.). Most preferred to communicate with their physician via cell phone at predetermined times, but by email at any time during the day (P < 0.0001). They would use cell phones for emergencies or unusual problems but preferred email for other matters (P < 0.0001). Conclusions. Pregnant women in the Negev region do not have a preference between the use of cell phones or email for medical consultation with their gynecologist or family physician. The provision of the physician's cell phone numbers or email address together with the provision of guidelines and resources could improve healthcare services.

No abstract

In this study, we sought to ascertain a relationship between gestational age at birth and infectious morbidity of the offspring via population-based cohort analysis comparing the long-term incidence of infectious morbidity in infants born preterm and stratified by extremity of prematurity (extreme preterm birth: 24 + 0–27 + 6, very preterm birth: 28 + 0–31 + 6, moderate to late preterm birth: 32 + 0−36 + 6 weeks of gestation, and term deliveries). Infectious morbidity included hospitalizations involving a predefined set of International Classification of Diseases 9 (ICD9) codes, as recorded in hospital records. A Kaplan–Meier survival curve compared cumulative incidence of infectious-related morbidity. A Cox proportional hazards model controlled for confounders and time to event. The study included 220,594 patients: 125 (0.1%) extreme preterm births, 784 (0.4%) very preterm births, 13,323 (6.0%) moderate to late preterm births, and 206,362 term deliveries. Offspring born preterm had significantly more infection-related hospitalizations (18.4%, 19.8%, 14.9%, and 11.0% for the aforementioned stratification, respectively, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis found being born very or late to moderate preterm was independently associated with long-term infectious morbidity (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27–1.77 and aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17–1.3, respectively, p < 0.001). A comparable risk of long-term infectious morbidity was found in the two groups of premature births prior to 32 weeks gestation. In our population, a cutoff from 32 weeks and below demarks a significant increase in the risk of long-term infectious morbidity of the offspring.

No abstract