Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34904223›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2022

Psychological well-being and worries among pregnant women in the first trimester during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark compared with a historical group: A hospital-based cross-sectional study.

Lotte Broberg, Ane L Rom, Mie G de Wolff, Stinne Høgh, Nina O Nathan, Louise D Paarlberg, Karl B Christensen, Peter Damm, Hanne Kristine Hegaard

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lotte BrobergDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1778-7941
Ane L RomDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mie G de WolffDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9483-6559
Stinne HøghDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8712-1088
Nina O NathanDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Louise D PaarlbergDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karl B ChristensenSection of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter DammDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hanne Kristine HegaardDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Nordea-fonden 110711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA pandemic may negatively influence psychological well-being in the individual. We aimed to assess the potential influence of the first national lockdown in Denmark (March to June 2020) due to the COVID-19 pandemic on psychological well-being and the content and degree of worries among pregnant women in early pregnancy. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn this hospital-based cross-sectional study based on self-reported data we compared psychological well-being and worries among women who were pregnant during the first phase of the pandemic (COVID-19 group) (n = 685), with women who were pregnant the year before (Historical group) (n = 787). Psychological well-being was measured by the five-item World Health Organization Well-being Index (WHO-5), using a score ≤50 as indicator of reduced psychological well-being. Differences in WHO-5 mean scores and in the prevalence of women with score ≤50 were assessed using general linear and log-binomial regression analyses. The Cambridge Worry Scale was used to measure the content and degree of major worries. To detect differences between groups, Pearson's Chi-square test was used.

resultsWe found no differences in mean WHO-5 score between groups (mean difference) 0.1 (95% CI -1.5 to 1.6) or in the prevalence of women with WHO-5 score ≤50 (prevalence ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.83-1.29) in adjusted analyses. A larger proportion of women in the COVID-19 group reported major worries about Relationship with husband/partner compared with the Historical group (3% [n = 19] vs 1% [n = 6], p = 0.04), and 9.2% in the COVID-19 group worried about the possible negative influence of the COVID-19 restrictions.

conclusionsOur findings indicate that national restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not influence the psychological well-being or the content and degree of major worries among pregnant women. However, a larger proportion of women in the COVID-19 group reported major worries concerning Relationship with husband/partner compared with the Historical group and 9.2% in the COVID-19 group worried about the possible negative influence of the COVID-19 restrictions.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Interpersonal RelationsMental HealthPregnancy Complications, InfectiousCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstPregnant PeoplePsychologySARS-CoV-2comparison groupCOVID-19cross-sectional studylockdownmental conditionspregnancypsychological well-beingworry

Identifiers

PMID34904223
PMCPMC9564582
OpenAlexW4200501103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.