Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34186334›Full record

ArticleMidwifery2021

"Anxious and traumatised": Users' experiences of maternity care in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Julia Sanders, Rebecca Blaylock

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Midwifery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, UK. Electronic address: Sandersj3@cardiff.ac.uk.
Rebecca BlaylockCentre for Reproductive Research and Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), 30-31 Furnival Street, London, EC4A 1JQ. Electronic address: rebecca.blaylock@bpas.org.
British Pharmacological Society · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic saw universal, radical, and ultra-rapid changes to UK National Health Services (NHS) maternity care. At the onset of the pandemic, NHS maternity services were stripped of many of the features which support woman and family centred care. In anticipation of unknown numbers of pregnant women and maternity staff potentially sick with COVID-19, services were pared back to the minimum level considered to be required to keep women and their babies safe. The aim of this survey was to understand the impact of COVID-19 public health messaging and pandemic-related service changes on users of maternity care in the UK during the pandemic.

methodsWe conducted an online survey to explore user's experiences of COVID-19 public health messaging and 'socially-distanced' maternity care across the UK. The study population consisted of women who had experienced pregnancy after the 11th March 2020 (when the WHO declared a pandemic), whether or not they were still pregnant. We collected data between June and September 2020. We used framework analysis for the free-text data and generated descriptive statistics.

findingsWomen were generally happy to adopt a precautionary approach and stringently social distance in the context of a relatively unknown pathogen and in an environment of extreme anxiety and uncertainty, but were acutely aware of the negative impacts. The survey found that the widespread changes to services caused unintended negative consequences including essential clinical care being missed, confusion over advice, and distress and emotional trauma for women. COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in women feeling their antenatal and postnatal care to be inadequate and has also come at great emotional cost to users. Women reported feeling isolated and sad in the postnatal period, but also frustrated and upset by a lack of staff to help them care for their new baby. KEY

conclusionsWith growing evidence of the impact of the virus on pregnant women and an increased understanding of the unintended consequences of unclear public health messaging and overly precautious services, a more nuanced, evidence-based approach to caring for women during a pandemic must be prioritised. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: All maternity services should ensure they have clear lines of communication with women to keep them updated on changing care and visiting arrangements. Services should ensure that opportunities to provide safe face-to-face care and access for birth partners and visitors are maximised.

Indexed as

AnxietyCOVID-19AdolescentAdultFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaternal Health ServicesPandemicsPostnatal CarePregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal CareSARS-CoV-2United KingdomAntenatalCOVID-19 pandemicMaternity-carePostnatalPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID34186334
PMCPMC8437682
OpenAlexW3176724311

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.