Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Pregnant Women: A Scoping Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

During the gestation period, pregnant women experience physical and psychological changes, which represent vulnerability factors that can boost the development of mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic is producing new changes in the routines of the whole society, especially on lifestyle habits. The psychological impact associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and pregnant women remains unclear. A scoping review regarding the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pregnant women was conducted. Searchers were conducted using the PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Articles in Spanish, English and French were included. The search was conducted between November 2020 and September 2021. We identified 31 studies that evaluated 30,049 expectant mothers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pregnant women showed high levels of anxiety and depression symptomatology. Fear of contagion and concerns regarding the health of the fetus were identified as the main variables related to psychological distress. An increase of the levels of depression, anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic amongst pregnant women has been observed. Moreover, an increased vulnerability of the fetus due to placental metabolic alterations is discussed. This review suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with a negative psychological impact on pregnant women. Thus, high levels of anxiety and depression symptoms suggest the need for a systematic approach.

Related collections

Most cited references 72

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 13207 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 7284 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Zachary Munn, Micah D J Peters, Cindy Stern … (2018)

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.