COVID-19 in the context of pregnancy, infancy and parenting (CoCoPIP) study: protocol for a longitudinal study of parental mental health, social interactions, physical growth and cognitive development of infants during the pandemic

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

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

While the secondary impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being of pregnant women and parents has become apparent over the past year, the impact of these changes on early social interactions, physical growth and cognitive development of their infants is unknown, as is the way in which a range of COVID-19-related changes have mediated this impact. This study (CoCoPIP) will investigate: (1) how parent’s experiences of the social, medical and financial changes during the pandemic have impacted prenatal and postnatal parental mental health and parent–infant social interaction; and (2) the extent to which these COVID-19-related changes in parental prenatal and postnatal mental health and social interaction are associated with fetal and infant development.

Methods and analysis

The CoCoPIP study is a national online survey initiated in July 2020. This ongoing study (n=1700 families currently enrolled as of 6 May 2021) involves both quantitative and qualitative data being collected across pregnancy and infancy. It is designed to identify the longitudinal impact of the pandemic from pregnancy to 2 years of age as assessed using a range of parent- and self-report measures, with the aim of identifying if stress-associated moderators (ie, loss of income, COVID-19 illness, access to ante/postnatal support) appear to impact parental mental health, and in turn, infant development. In addition, we aim to document individual differences in social and cognitive development in toddlers who were born during restrictions intended to mitigate COVID-19 spread (eg, social distancing, national lockdowns).

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was given by the University of Cambridge, Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2020.077). Findings will be made available via community engagement, public forums (eg, social media,) and to national (eg, NHS England) and local (Cambridge Universities Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) healthcare partners. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviews journals.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053800
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.22.21257649: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Where they consent to this, they are contacted via email containing a link to the separate online survey.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisPower Calculation: To ensure sufficient power for the study, statistical power calculations (G*Power adapted for regression) based on three outcomes, up to three predictors and four co-variables, estimated a minimum sample size for Hypothesis 1 of n = 400 (small effect, f2 = 0.02).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Power Calculation: To ensure sufficient power for the study, statistical power calculations (G*Power adapted for regression) based on three outcomes, up to three predictors and four co-variables, estimated a minimum sample size for Hypothesis 1 of n = 400 (small effect, f2 = 0.02).
    G*Power
    suggested: (G*Power, RRID:SCR_013726)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2021.05.22.21257649v1 on medRxiv