Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610170›Full record

ArticleWomen and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives2023

Navigating uncertainty alone: A grounded theory analysis of women's psycho-social experiences of pregnancy and childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic in London.

Elsa Montgomery, Kaat De Backer, Abigail Easter, Laura A Magee, Jane Sandall, Sergio A Silverio

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elsa MontgomeryDepartment of Midwifery, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kaat De BackerDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abigail EasterDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Laura A MageeDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jane SandallDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sergio A SilverioDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Sergio.Silverio@kcl.ac.uk.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

problemMaternity care underwent substantial reconfiguration in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

backgroundCOVID-19 posed an unprecedented public health crisis, risking population health and causing a significant health system shock.

aimTo explore the psycho-social experiences of women who received maternity care and gave birth in South London during the first 'lockdown'.

methodsWe recruited women (N = 23) to semi-structured interviews, conducted virtually. Data were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by hand. A Classical Grounded Theory Analysis was followed including line-by-line coding, focused coding, development of super-categories followed by themes, and finally the generation of a theory.

findingsIterative and inductive analysis generated six emergent themes, sorted into three dyadic pairs: 1 & 2: Lack of relational care vs. Good practice persisting during the pandemic; 3 & 4: Denying the embodied experience of pregnancy and birth vs. Trying to keep everyone safe; and 5 & 6: Removed from support network vs. Importance of being at home as a family. Together, these themes interact to form the theory: 'Navigating uncertainty alone'. DISCUSSION: Women's pregnancy and childbirth journeys during the pandemic were reported as having positive and negative experiences which would counteract one-another. Lack of relational care, denial of embodied experiences, and removal from support networks were counterbalanced by good practice which persisted, understanding staff were trying to keep everyone safe, and renewed importance in the family unit.

conclusionPregnancy can be an uncertain time for women. This was compounded by having to navigate their maternity journey alone during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Maternal Health ServicesFemaleGrounded TheoryHumansLondonPandemicsParturitionPregnancyQualitative ResearchUncertaintyCOVID-19Grounded theoryMaternity carePregnancy and childbirthQualitative methodsWomen’s psycho-social experiences

Identifiers

PMID35610170
PMCPMC9110569
OpenAlexW4280563251

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.