Nurturing care during COVID-19: a rapid review of early evidence

  1. Kerrie Proulx
  2. Rachel Lenzi-Weisbecker
  3. Rachel Hatch
  4. Kristy Hackett
  5. Carina Omoeva
  6. Vanessa Cavallera
  7. Bernadette Daelmans
  8. Tarun Dua

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant changes to family life, society and essential health and other services. A rapid review of evidence was conducted to examine emerging evidence on the effects of the pandemic on three components of nurturing care, including responsive caregiving, early learning, and safety and security.

Design

Two academic databases, organisational websites and reference lists were searched for original studies published between 1 January and 25 October 2020. A single reviewer completed the study selection and data extraction with verification by a second reviewer.

Interventions

We included studies with a complete methodology and reporting on quantitative or qualitative evidence related to nurturing care during the pandemic.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Studies reporting on outcomes related to responsive caregiving, early learning, and safety and security were included.

Results

The search yielded 4410 citations in total, and 112 studies from over 30 countries met our eligibility criteria. The early evidence base is weighted towards studies in high-income countries, studies related to caregiver mental health and those using quantitative survey designs. Studies reveal issues of concern related to increases in parent and caregiver stress and mental health difficulties during the pandemic, which was linked to harsher and less warm or responsive parenting in some studies. A relatively large number of studies examined child safety and security and indicate a reduction in maltreatment referrals. Lastly, studies suggest that fathers’ engagement in caregiving increased during the early phase of the pandemic, children’s outdoor play and physical activity decreased (while screen time increased), and emergency room visits for child injuries decreased.

Conclusion

The results highlight key evidence gaps (ie, breastfeeding support and opportunities for early learning) and suggest the need for increased support and evidence-based interventions to ensure young children and other caregivers are supported and protected during the pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050417
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.10.21251507: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We searched two databases (PubMed and ERIC) based on a search strategy developed and pilot-tested in collaboration with a librarian.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    ERIC
    suggested: (ERIC, RRID:SCR_007644)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2021.02.10.21251507v1 on medRxiv