Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Karen B. Fowler1, Susan L. Davies2, Mirjam-Colette Kempf3, Michael Cannon4, Suresh Boppana1, Alan T. Tita5, Rodney K. Edwards5
Departments of 1Pediatrics, 2Health Behavior, 3Nursing, Family, Comm & Health Systems, 5Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, & 4Centers for Disease Control
Increasing Awareness and Promoting Strategies for Prevention of Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection
(cCMV) Among Young Urban Pregnant Women
CMV Public Health & Policy ConferenceSeptember 27, 2016
Introduction
• Congenital CMV Infection (cCMV) remains the most common congenital infection in the United States (US), and an important cause of hearing loss in children.
However, most women of childbearing age have never heard of cCMV and the risk of cCMV’sdamaging sequelae for their newborns, or how to prevent possible CMV exposures that may result in infection.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Objective
To evaluate whether a cognitive-behavioral intervention to increase CMV awareness and CMV prevention counseling can,
1) increase knowledge about cCMV and
2) decrease self-reported risk behaviors among young urban pregnant women.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Study Population:
Between October 2013 and June 2015, 215 pregnant women aged 16 – 29 years were recruited/enrolled following their first prenatal visit into a CMV cognitive-behavioral intervention study.
All women aged 16 - 29 years who enrolled in prenatal care at any of the Jefferson County Health Department Prenatal Clinics and who planned to deliver at UAB Hospital were eligible to participate. Women were contacted either through advertisements in the prenatal ultrasound clinics, and/or telephone calls.
Methods
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
MethodsBaseline demographics & information on their CMV
exposures and knowledge were collected using questionnaires. Additional prenatal information was collected from their medical record.
CMV serostatus was collected from data available from the Obstetrics/Maternal Fetal Medicine Division for those who had been previously tested, and remnant 3rd
trimester blood specimens were collected for CMV antibody testing for women who were either not previously tested or women who were CMV negative at the beginning of their pregnancy.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
MethodsCognitive-Behavioral Intervention:(help individuals to identify helpful and unhelpful behaviors, establish goals, and develop
skills to solve problems and implement new behaviors)
215 women were randomized:
108 “CMV Prevention in Pregnancy” intervention group (PREVENT) – CMV education and prevention intervention
107 “Taking Care of Me” intervention group (CONTROL) educational stress reduction intervention.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
MethodsCognitive-Behavioral Intervention, con’t:
For both groups, each woman had • a 15-20 min individual behavioral skills session
with study personnel, • watched a short video, • received a take home packet, • received weekly text messages for 12 weeks to
deliver the PREVENT or CONTROL interventions.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Methods
Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention, con’t:
In addition, each woman attended 6 and 12 week follow-up visits for an intervention boost for the PREVENT group and where post-intervention CMV knowledge and risk behaviors were assessed via questionnaires in both groups.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Methods
196/215 (91.2%) women had both pre- and post-intervention assessments, 97 in the PREVENT group & 99 in the CONTROL group (p=0.48).
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Study CharacteristicsAt Enrollment
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
Age, yrsMean ± SD21.7 ± 3.6
Mean ± SD21.6 ± 3.3 NS
Race & Ethnicity % (95% CI) % (95% CI)
Black 90.7% (83.1 – 95.7%) 90.9% (83.4 – 95.8%) NS
White, Non Hispanic 5.1% (1.7 – 11.6%) 8.1% (3.5 – 15.3%)
White, Hispanic 2.1% (0.2 – 7.2%) 0
Multiracial 2.1% (0.2 – 7.2%) 1.0% (0.3 – 5.5%)
Insurance Status
Public or No Insurance 91.7% (84.4 – 96.4%) 96.0% (90.0 – 98.9%) NS
Educational Level
< 12 years 31.9% (22.9 – 42.2%) 29.3% (20.6 – 39.3%) NS
Marital Status
Single 86.6% (78.2 – 92.7%) 87.8% (79.7 – 93.6%) NS
Study Characteristics at Enrollment
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Study CharacteristicsAt Enrollment
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
Trimester 1st Prenatal Visit
1st 72.9% (62.1 -80.8%) 81.6% (71.7 – 88.0%) NS
CMV Serostatus
CMV Seropositive 55.7% (45.2 – 65.8%) 69.7% (59.6 – 78.5%) NS
CMV Seronegative 26.8% (18.3 – 36.8%) 15.1% (8.7 – 23.8%)
CMV Status Unknown 17.5% (10.5 – 26.6%) 15.1% (8.7 – 23.8%)
Study Characteristics at Enrollment
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
Live/ young children (0-6 y) 44.3% (34.2 – 54.8%) 46.5% (36.4 – 56.8%) NS
Children in house attend daycare 16.5% (9.7 – 25.4%) 24.2% (16.1 – 33.9%) NS
Live with their own children 43.3% (33.3 – 53.7%) 46.5% (36.4 – 56.8%) NS
Take care of young children /regular basis 75.3% (65.5 – 83.5%) 80.8% (71.7 – 88.0%) NS
Age of sexual debutMean ± SD
15.6 ± 2.0 yrsMean ± SD
15.7 ± 2.0 yrs NS4+ lifetime sexual partners 64.9% (54.6 – 74.5%) 66.7% (56.5 – 75.8%) NS
Any STIs during pregnancy 71.1% (61.1 – 79.9%) 59.5% (49.3 – 69.3%) NS
History of STIs 47.4% (37.2 – 57.8%) 50.5% (40.3 – 60.7%) NS
Possible CMV Exposures at Enrollment
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Awareness & Knowledge
CorrectKnowledgeScore– 0to16
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Awareness & Knowledge
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
P value
PRE Intervention at Enrollment
Ever Heard of CMV? 11.3% (5.8 – 19.4%) 16.2% (9.5 – 24.9%) 0.3
Correct CMV Knowledge Score (0 -16, highest score 16)
7.7 ± 3.2(range, 1 – 15)
7.5 ± 3.3(range, 1 – 15) 0.6
POST InterventionCorrect CMV Knowledge Score (0 -16, highest score 16)
11.3 ± 2.2(range, 3 – 16)
8.5 ± 3.7(range, 1 – 16) <0.0001
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Risk Behaviors
1. Afterchangingadirtydiaper,howoftendoyouwashyourhandswithsoap&water(orusehandsanitizer)?
2. Afterchangingawetdiaper,howoftendoyouwashyourhandswithsoap&water(orusehandsanitizer)?
3. Afterfeedingayoungchild,howoftendoyouwashyourhandswithsoap&water(orusehandsanitizer)?
4. Afterwipingachild’snose,mouthordrool,howoftendoyouwashyourhandswithsoap&water(orusehandsanitizer)?
5. Afterhelpingachildusethetoilet,howoftendiddoyouwashyourhandswithsoakandwater(orusehandsanitizer)?
0-Always1-Usually2-Occasionally3–Rarely4–Never1. Howmanydaysinthepastweekdidyoukissachildonthemouth?2. Howmanydaysinthepastweekdidyousharefoodwithachild?3. Howmanydaysinthepastweekdidyoushareeatingutensilswithachild?4. Howmanydaysinthepastweekdidyousharethesamecuporglasswitha
child?5. Howmanydaysinthepastweekdidyouputachild’spacifierinyourmouth?6. Howmanydaysinthepastweekdidyoushareatoothbrushwithachild?
0:0days1:1-2days2:3-4days3:5-6days4:Everyday
RiskBehaviorScore– 0to44
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Risk BehaviorsPREVENT
N=97CONTROL
N=99P
valuePRE Intervention at Enrollment
Kiss young children on the mouth 40.2% (30.4 – 50.6%) 40.4% (30.7 – 50.7%) 0.9
Share food, drinks, eating utensils, etc. with young children 47.4% (37.2 – 57.8%) 50.5% (40.3 – 60.7%) 0.7
Not always wash hands after feeding, wiping face & hands, etc. 58.8% (48.3 – 68.7%) 54.5% (44.2 – 64.6%) 0.6
Not always wash hands after changing diapers 29.9% (21.0 – 40.0%) 36.4% (26.9 – 46.6%) 0.3
CMV risk behavior score (0-44, 44 highest risk score)
5.2 ± 5.9(range, 0 - 23)
5.7 ± 6.1(range, 0 - 32) 0.5
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Risk Behaviors
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
P value
PRE Intervention at EnrollmentKiss young children on the mouth 40.2% (30.4 – 50.6%) 40.4% (30.7 – 50.7%) 0.9
POST InterventionKiss young children on the mouth 10.3% (5.1 – 18.1%) 27.3% (18.8 – 37.1%) 0.002
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
P value
PRE Intervention at EnrollmentShare food, drinks, eating utensils, etc. with young children 47.4% (37.2 – 57.8%) 50.5% (40.3 – 60.7%) 0.7
POST InterventionShare food, drinks, eating utensils, etc. with young children 15.5% (8.9 – 24.2%) 30.3% (21.5 – 40.3%) 0.01
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Risk BehaviorsPREVENT
N=97CONTROL
N=99P value
PRE Intervention at EnrollmentNot always wash hands after feeding, wiping face & hands, etc. 58.8% (48.3 – 68.7%) 54.5% (44.2 – 64.6%) 0.6
POST InterventionNot always wash hands after feeding, wiping face & hands, etc. 43.3% (33.3 – 53.7%) 42.4% (32.5 – 52.8%) 0.9
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
P value
PRE Intervention at EnrollmentNot always wash hands after changing diapers 29.9% (21.0 – 40.0%) 36.4% (26.9 – 46.6%) 0.3
POST InterventionNot always wash hands after changing diapers 20.6% (13.1 – 30.0%) 28.3% (19.7 – 38.2%) 0.2
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
CMV Risk Behaviors
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
P value
PRE Intervention at EnrollmentCMV risk behavior score (0-44, 44 highest risk score)
5.2 ± 5.9(range, 0 - 23)
5.7 ± 6.1(range, 0 - 32) 0.5
POST InterventionCMV risk behavior score (0-44, 44 highest risk score)
1.7 ± 2.6(range, 0 - 12)
3.4 ± 4.6(range, 0 - 26) 0.002
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Seroconversions
Study CharacteristicsAt Enrollment
PREVENTN=97
CONTROLN=99
% (95% CI) % (95% CI)
CMV Serostatus
CMV Seropositive 55.7% (45.2 – 65.8%) 69.7% (59.6 – 78.5%) NS
CMV Seronegative 26.8% (18.3 – 36.8%) 15.1% (8.7 – 23.8%)
CMV Status Unknown 17.5% (10.5 – 26.6%) 15.1% (8.7 – 23.8%)
Seroconversions 1/166.2% (1.6 – 30.2%)
2/922.2% (2.8 – 60.0%)
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Conclusion
Despite being the group at highest risk for having offspring with cCMV, young women lack awareness or accurate knowledge of cCMV and how to protect themselves and their fetuses/infants from CMV.
This cognitive-behavioral intervention demonstrates that it is possible to raise awareness about cCMV and decrease CMV risk behaviors in young urban pregnant women.
Fowler,etal.inpreparation
Acknowledgements
Study staff:
Alice Brumbach, RN, MSNEmily Mixon, MPHD’Netria Jackson
Supported by the CDC 1 U01 DD-12-005
Fowler,etal.inpreparation