Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33038477›Full record

ArticleAppetite2021

The impact of the Covid-19 lockdown on the experiences and feeding practices of new mothers in the UK: Preliminary data from the COVID-19 New Mum Study.

A Vazquez-Vazquez, S Dib, E Rougeaux, J C Wells, M S Fewtrell

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Appetite, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A Vazquez-VazquezChildhood Nutrition Research Group, Population, Policy & Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Electronic address: adriana.vazquez.15@ucl.ac.uk.
S DibChildhood Nutrition Research Group, Population, Policy & Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Electronic address: Sarah.dib.15@ucl.ac.uk.
E RougeauxChildhood Nutrition Research Group, Population, Policy & Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Electronic address: e.rougeaux@ucl.ac.uk.
J C WellsChildhood Nutrition Research Group, Population, Policy & Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Electronic address: Jonathan.wells@ucl.ac.uk.
M S FewtrellChildhood Nutrition Research Group, Population, Policy & Practice Research and Teaching Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, WC1N 1EH, UK. Electronic address: m.fewtrell@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 New Mum Study is recording maternal experiences and infant feeding during the UK lockdown. This report from week 1 of the survey describes and compares the delivery and post-natal experiences of women who delivered before (BL) versus during (DL) the lockdown.

methodsWomen living in the UK aged ≥18 years with an infant ≤12 months of age completed an anonymous online survey (https://is.gd/covid19newmumstudy). Information/links are shared via websites, social media and existing contacts.

resultsFrom 27.5.20-3.6.20, 1365 women provided data (94% white, 95% married/with partner, 66% degree/higher qualification, 86% living in house; 1049 (77%) delivered BL and 316 (23%) DL. Delivery mode, skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding initiation did not differ between groups. DL women had shorter hospital stays (p < 0.001). 39% reported changes to their birth plan. Reflecting younger infant age, 59% of DL infants were exclusively breast-fed/mixed fed versus 39% of BL (p < 0.05). 13% reported a change in feeding; often related to lack of breastfeeding support, especially with practical problems. Important sources of feeding support were the partner (60%), health professional (50%) and online groups (47%). 45% of DL women reported insufficient feeding support. Among BL women, 57% and 69% reported decreased feeding support and childcare, respectively. 40% BL/45% DL women reported insufficient support with their own health, 8%/9% contacted a mental health professional; 11% reported their mental health was affected. 9% highlighted lack of contact/support from family and distress that they had missed seeing the baby.

conclusionLockdown has impacted maternal experiences, resulting in distress for many women. Our findings suggest the need for better infant feeding support, especially 'face-to-face' support for practical issues; and recognising and supporting mothers who are struggling with mental health challenges or other aspects of their health. The effectiveness of online versus face-to-face contact is currently uncertain, and requires further evaluation.

Indexed as

COVID-19Feeding BehaviorHealth Services AccessibilityMothersPandemicsStress, PsychologicalAdultBreast FeedingFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLength of StayMaleMental HealthPreliminary DataBirthBreastfeedingCovid-19Infant feedingLockdownMental healthMotherSocial support

Identifiers

PMID33038477
PMCPMC7538871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.