Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of women participating in the study, ZIKV-associated symptoms during pregnancy, and description of microcephaly diagnosis.
| Name* | Age | Education | Occupation | Relatives living with her | Religion | SES **** | ZIKV symptoms (pregnancy month) | How was maternal ZIKV/microcephalic children being diagnosed? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| María | 32 | Secondary school | Child care | Partner, daughter, and microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Rash, muscular pain, and headache (3) | All ultrasound (US) exams were normal. The only concern was that the foetus was underweight. In the last US (month 8), foetal head measurement did not correlate with other anthropometric parameters. |
| Nadia | 21 | Primary school | Child care | Partner, mother in law, father in law, grandmother in law, and microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Fever, headache and vomiting (early in pregnancy), and does not remember if she presented with any rash. | All US assessments were normal, until the last one, when head circumference was detected to be smaller than expected for gestational age. |
| Adelaida | 26 | Practical training | Child care | Partner, daughter, and microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Rash and fever (3) | She was tested for ZIKV, never received her results. All US were normal, until the last one when “microcephaly” was diagnosed. |
| Carla | 30 | Unknown | Unknown | Partner, and microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Rash (2) | All US exams were normal. At month 7, head circumference was small for gestational age. At month 8, microcephaly was confirmed. |
| Guadalupe | 18 | University (ongoing) | Student | Mother, two siblings, and microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Rash (before realizing she was pregnant) | First US exam was normal. Patient didn´t attend to second US appointment due to monetary constraints. During third US, measures did not correlate with gestational age, and a C-section was performed. |
| Judith | 29 | University | Teacher (literates’ adults) | Partner, and microcephalic child | Christian | Medium | Rash, fever, and bone pain (not defined) | All US exams were normal. Only concern clinicians had was that the baby had intrauterine growth restriction. |
| Georgina | 43 | Secondary | Child care | Partner, child, daughter-in-law, two grandchildren, and the grandchildren with microcephaly (She was the grandmother but primary caregiver)*** | Christian | Low | Biological mother presented fever (2 or 3) | All US exams were normal. At month 8, microcephaly was confirmed. |
| Paola | 23 | University | Child care | Father, mother, brother, niece, and microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Rash, fever, and body pain (1) | In an US exam (month 6) microcephaly and Dandy–Walker syndrome were diagnosed in the baby. |
| Jenny | 20 | Primary school | Assistant in a household | Partner, son, and microcephalic child. She was pregnant at the moment of the interview*** | Christian | Low | None. But her husband had symptoms compatible with ZIKV when she was 5 months pregnant | All US exams were normal. In the last US exam, microcephaly was diagnosed. |
| Consuelo | 22 | Primary school | Child care | Partner, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and microcephalic child | Not declared | Low | Rash during pregnancy (month not specified) | First US exam was normal. During second US, health staff noticed baby’s head was smaller than expected for gestational age. No diagnosis of microcephaly was done until baby was born. |
| Carmen | 24 | Practical training | Nursing assistant** | Her microcephalic child | Christian | Low | Rash and fever (month not specified) | Microcephaly was detected by US. ZIKV screening in child blood samples were then performed. |
SES: Socio-economic status; US: Ultrasound.
*All names have been made up to guarantee anonymity.
**At the moment of the interview, she was on leave to take care of her child who had Dengue virus infection
***They live in a rural settlement as they were expelled from their home-town by the armed conflict in Colombia.
**** According to official government classification in Colombia, every district is rated from 1 to 6 for its affluence: very low (Status 1), low (Status 2), medium (Status 3), high (Status 4), very high (Status 5), and extremely high (Status 6). Populations living in districts of Status 1 and 2 are considered poor [23].