Expectant parents’ perceptions of healthcare and support during COVID-19 in the UK: a thematic analysis

  1. Ezra Aydin
  2. Kevin A. Glasgow
  3. Staci M. Weiss
  4. Topun Austin
  5. Mark H. Johnson
  6. Jane Barlow
  7. Sarah Lloyd-Fox

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1080/02646838.2022.2075542
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.14.21255490: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: All participating parents gave informed consent to take part in the CoCoPIP online survey (tinyurl.com/CoCoPIP).
    IRB: Ethics approval for the survey was given by the University of Cambridge, Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PREC) (PRE.2020.077).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: As data were collected between July – December 2020 participants experiences reflect a period of fluctuating COVID-related government and healthcare restrictions, from the most severe national lockdown measures to a combination of severe to mild national/local restrictions. Furthermore, as a result of the fact that this study was conducted as a voluntary online survey, we cannot confirm all responses were by expectant parents or exclude bias in respondents with either positive or negative experience of their pregnancy. Whilst we advertised this study nationally, the majority of participants were White; therefore, the results cannot be generalised to a more ethnically diverse population. However, this study is part of an ongoing longitudinal study observing the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy, infant development and parental mental health and we hope we increase the diversity of our sample longitudinally. Another limitation is that of the six questions posed not every participant gave a response to each one. Finally, from a qualitative perspective, due to the online survey nature of the project, it was not possible to probe and question further by means of interviews to further elucidate the links between perceived lack of support and anxiety. Conclusions: Changes to antenatal support and healthcare appointments in response to governmental guidance with regard to social distancing has had an adverse effect on the experiences of many pregnant women in the UK, with ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.14.21255490v1 on medRxiv