Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of parents with young children: a qualitative interview study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
Parents have faced unique challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including mobility constraints, isolation measures, working from home, and the closure of schools and childcare facilities. There is presently a lack of in-depth qualitative research exploring how these changes have affected parents’ mental health and wellbeing.
Methods
Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 29 parents of young children. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
We identified five superordinate themes affecting participant mental health and wellbeing: (1) navigation of multiple responsibilities and change inside the home; (2) disruption to home life; (3) changes to usual support networks; (4) changes in personal relationships; and (5) use of coping strategies. Participants described stress and exhaustion from navigating multiple pressures and conflicting responsibilities with home, schooling, and work, without their usual support networks and in the context of disrupted routines. Family roles and relationships were sometimes tested, however, many parents identified coping strategies that protected their wellbeing including access to outdoor space, spending time away from family, and avoiding conflict and pandemic-related media coverage.
Conclusions
Employers must be cognisant of the challenges that the pandemic has placed on parents, particularly women and lone parents. Flexible working arrangements and support might therefore relieve stress and increase productivity. Coping strategies identified by parents in this study could be harnessed and encouraged by employers and policymakers to promote positive wellbeing during times of stress throughout the pandemic and beyond.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.13.21256805: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Ethical approval was granted by the University College London research ethics committee (Project ID: 14895/005).
Consent: All those who agreed to participate electronically signed an informed consent form prior to the interview.Sex as a biological variable Interviewers were female and male researchers with experience of qualitative methods (JD is a research fellow in public health and healthcare clinician; AB, AR and AM are postdoctoral research fellows in social science and behavioural health; HA is a pre-doctoral researcher and trainee medic). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains Sentences Resour… SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.13.21256805: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: Ethical approval was granted by the University College London research ethics committee (Project ID: 14895/005).
Consent: All those who agreed to participate electronically signed an informed consent form prior to the interview.Sex as a biological variable Interviewers were female and male researchers with experience of qualitative methods (JD is a research fellow in public health and healthcare clinician; AB, AR and AM are postdoctoral research fellows in social science and behavioural health; HA is a pre-doctoral researcher and trainee medic). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Experimental Models: Organisms/Strains Sentences Resources Interviewers were female and male researchers with experience of qualitative methods (JD is a research fellow in public health and healthcare clinician; AB, AR and AM are postdoctoral research fellows in social science and behavioural health; HA is a pre-doctoral researcher and trainee medic). ABsuggested: RRID:BDSC_203)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:However, there are several limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the findings. First, whilst the data set is comprised of a large qualitative sample that generated rich and detailed accounts of parental life during the pandemic, the majority of interviews were conducted in the Autumn of 2020. This is a period when most children in the UK had returned to school. Although parents reflected on their own experiences of the pandemic as a whole and recalled that periods of home schooling added to stress, for many, the time at which interviews were carried out may well have been a time of lower stress and comparatively improved resilience. Second, the sample may be biased toward those parents motivated or willing/able to participate, and we are particularly missing the views of those who lacked access to the internet. Finally, our sample was highly educated and predominantly consisted of mothers, however where pertinent to do so, we have highlighted the views and differences in experiences between these groups.
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.
-
