Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710387›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Pregnant at the start of the pandemic: a content analysis of COVID-19-related posts on online pregnancy discussion boards.

Rebekah Choi, Ashwini Nagappan, Deena Kopyto, Anna Wexler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

Rebekah ChoiDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Ashwini NagappanDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Deena KopytoDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Anna WexlerDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. awex@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

Do-it-Yourself and Direct-to-Consumer Medicine and Science: Assessing the Public Health Issues and Regulatory GapsDP5OD026420 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WEXLER, ANNA · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
NIH HHS DP5 OD026420NIH Office of the Director DP5OD026420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing body of evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic has had detrimental mental health effects for pregnant women. However, little is known about the specific stressors that increased anxiety for pregnant women at the start of the pandemic. The present study aimed to better understand the concerns of pregnant women during the beginning COVID-19 pandemic by analyzing content posted during the month of March 2020 on online pregnancy message boards hosted on WhatToExpect.com.

methodsAll posts published between March 1-31, 2020 on nine different due-date specific WhatToExpect.com message boards were reviewed for COVID-19 relevance. Posts mentioning COVID-19 or its direct effects (e.g., "quarantine" or "stay-at-home order") were included in our final sample. Data were coded by three authors according to a codebook developed inductively by all four authors. Posts were analyzed by overall frequency of appearance, by trimester, and temporally across the month of March 2020.

resultsAcross the 5,541 posts included in our final sample, the most common topics were fear of COVID-19 exposure, concerns with labor and delivery, navigating social interactions, and disruptions to prenatal care. The most dominant topics by trimester were disruptions to prenatal care (first trimester), fear of COVID-19 exposure (second trimester), and concerns about labor and delivery (third trimester).

conclusionOur findings add to prior literature by demonstrating the salience of social concerns, which was the third largest COVID-19 topic in our sample. Emotional distress was most salient with regard to restrictions on birthing partners, but was apparent in everything from disruptions to pregnancy announcements, to cancelled baby showers, and limitations on newborn visitors. Given that anxiety during pregnancy is associated with worse maternal-fetal health outcomes, in the early stages of future pandemics healthcare providers should focus not only on strictly health-related concerns expressed by pregnant women, but also more broadly on other sources of anxiety that may be impacting the well-being and mental health of their patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAnxietyFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnant PeopleSARS-CoV-2AnxietyCOVID-19Digital healthOnline discussion forumsOnline forumsPandemicPregnancyPublic healthQualitative researchSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35710387
PMCPMC9201795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.