Objective: Hundreds of countries have implemented lockdown policies to slow the spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of these measures on maternal mental health is not well understood. Methods: This study integrated a stress-process model to examine the pathways from lockdown-related stressors to prenatal psychological outcomes, with COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) and self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) as mediators and lockdown duration, hours on pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies as moderators. Pregnant women in Shanghai completed the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, COVID-19 Coping Scale, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test and modify the hypothetical model, and moderated mediation and slope analyses were undertaken. Results: In the final SEM demonstrating satisfactory fit, three stressors—decreased household income, insufficient daily supplies, and acquired infections—showed positive direct relationships with NEG and COP. Acquired infections, NEG, and COP were identified as direct predictors of mental health outcomes. The relationship between these three stressors and mental health was mediated by NEG and COP. Additionally, the number of pregnancies moderated the mediating effect of COP; this effect was more pronounced among first-time pregnant women than those with multiple pregnancies. Conclusion This study provides insights into how lockdown measures impact psychological outcomes in pregnant women quarantined at home. Interventions aimed at increasing coping strategies may be more effective for primiparous women during future public health emergencies.

Objective: Hundreds of countries have implemented lockdown policies to slow the spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of these measures on maternal mental health is not well understood. Methods: This study integrated a stress-process model to examine the pathways from lockdown-related stressors to prenatal psychological outcomes, with COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) and self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) as mediators and lockdown duration, hours on pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies as moderators. Pregnant women in Shanghai completed the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, COVID-19 Coping Scale, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test and modify the hypothetical model, and moderated mediation and slope analyses were undertaken. Results: In the final SEM demonstrating satisfactory fit, three stressors—decreased household income, insufficient daily supplies, and acquired infections—showed positive direct relationships with NEG and COP. Acquired infections, NEG, and COP were identified as direct predictors of mental health outcomes. The relationship between these three stressors and mental health was mediated by NEG and COP. Additionally, the number of pregnancies moderated the mediating effect of COP; this effect was more pronounced among first-time pregnant women than those with multiple pregnancies. Conclusion This study provides insights into how lockdown measures impact psychological outcomes in pregnant women quarantined at home. Interventions aimed at increasing coping strategies may be more effective for primiparous women during future public health emergencies.

Objective: Hundreds of countries have implemented lockdown policies to slow the spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of these measures on maternal mental health is not well understood. Methods: This study integrated a stress-process model to examine the pathways from lockdown-related stressors to prenatal psychological outcomes, with COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) and self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) as mediators and lockdown duration, hours on pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies as moderators. Pregnant women in Shanghai completed the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, COVID-19 Coping Scale, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test and modify the hypothetical model, and moderated mediation and slope analyses were undertaken. Results: In the final SEM demonstrating satisfactory fit, three stressors—decreased household income, insufficient daily supplies, and acquired infections—showed positive direct relationships with NEG and COP. Acquired infections, NEG, and COP were identified as direct predictors of mental health outcomes. The relationship between these three stressors and mental health was mediated by NEG and COP. Additionally, the number of pregnancies moderated the mediating effect of COP; this effect was more pronounced among first-time pregnant women than those with multiple pregnancies. Conclusion This study provides insights into how lockdown measures impact psychological outcomes in pregnant women quarantined at home. Interventions aimed at increasing coping strategies may be more effective for primiparous women during future public health emergencies.

Objective: Hundreds of countries have implemented lockdown policies to slow the spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of these measures on maternal mental health is not well understood. Methods: This study integrated a stress-process model to examine the pathways from lockdown-related stressors to prenatal psychological outcomes, with COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) and self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) as mediators and lockdown duration, hours on pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies as moderators. Pregnant women in Shanghai completed the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, COVID-19 Coping Scale, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test and modify the hypothetical model, and moderated mediation and slope analyses were undertaken. Results: In the final SEM demonstrating satisfactory fit, three stressors—decreased household income, insufficient daily supplies, and acquired infections—showed positive direct relationships with NEG and COP. Acquired infections, NEG, and COP were identified as direct predictors of mental health outcomes. The relationship between these three stressors and mental health was mediated by NEG and COP. Additionally, the number of pregnancies moderated the mediating effect of COP; this effect was more pronounced among first-time pregnant women than those with multiple pregnancies. Conclusion This study provides insights into how lockdown measures impact psychological outcomes in pregnant women quarantined at home. Interventions aimed at increasing coping strategies may be more effective for primiparous women during future public health emergencies.

Objective: Hundreds of countries have implemented lockdown policies to slow the spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), but the impact of these measures on maternal mental health is not well understood. Methods: This study integrated a stress-process model to examine the pathways from lockdown-related stressors to prenatal psychological outcomes, with COVID-19 coping strategies (COP) and self-efficacy in managing negative affect (NEG) as mediators and lockdown duration, hours on pandemic-related information, and number of pregnancies as moderators. Pregnant women in Shanghai completed the Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, COVID-19 Coping Scale, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test and modify the hypothetical model, and moderated mediation and slope analyses were undertaken. Results: In the final SEM demonstrating satisfactory fit, three stressors—decreased household income, insufficient daily supplies, and acquired infections—showed positive direct relationships with NEG and COP. Acquired infections, NEG, and COP were identified as direct predictors of mental health outcomes. The relationship between these three stressors and mental health was mediated by NEG and COP. Additionally, the number of pregnancies moderated the mediating effect of COP; this effect was more pronounced among first-time pregnant women than those with multiple pregnancies. Conclusion This study provides insights into how lockdown measures impact psychological outcomes in pregnant women quarantined at home. Interventions aimed at increasing coping strategies may be more effective for primiparous women during future public health emergencies.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.