Cited by 11Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumCOVID-19 and Mental HealthCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction

Prenatal distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical and research implications

Open access
Liu, Cindy H., Hyun, Sunah, Erdei, Carmina, Mittal, Leena·2022·Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to identify risk and protective factors related to general prenatal distress and COVID-19-specific prenatal distress to inform intervention targets among women pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The study relied on data obtained from U.S. pregnant women (N = 701) who participated in the Perinatal Experiences and COVID-19 Effects (PEACE) Study from May 21 to October 3, 2020. The present cross-sectional study examined the potential risk and protective factors associated with different features of prenatal distress among U.S. pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Approximately two-thirds of expectant mothers indicated being more stressed about going to the hospital because of COVID-19. Generalized anxiety and PTSD were associated with higher levels of general and COVID-19-specific prenatal distress. Depression symptoms were associated with higher general prenatal distress. Higher levels of distress tolerance were associated with lower levels of general prenatal distress (B = − 0.192, p <.001) and COVID-19-specific prenatal distress (B = − 0.089, p <.05). Higher levels of instrumental social support were marginally associated with lower COVID-19-specific prenatal distress (B = − 0.140, p < 0.1). Conclusion: Findings draw attention to prenatal distress experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, including new types of distress arising from the pandemic itself. Women might benefit from the introduction of interventions such as mindfulness-based or relaxation therapy. Coverage of responsibilities and financial assistance is particularly needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Limitations include a majority White and high socioeconomic sample. These findings provide specificity regarding potential targets for addressing prenatal distress. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00404-021-06286-2

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 9 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Stress about birth preparations and COVID-19 infection risk is linked to elevated anxiety during pregnancy.

    “Stress regarding birth preparations and COVID-19 infection risk are linked to elevated anxiety during pregnancy [18].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Preis H, Mahaffey B, Heiselman C, Lobel M (2020) Pandemic-related pregnancy stress and anxiety among women pregnant during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2:100155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100155 source
  • Premisecitation

    Emotional social support is associated with lower pregnancy-specific distress.

    “Emotional social support [18], along with interpersonal characteristics such as relationship satisfaction or better rapport with one’s mother during pregnancy is associated with lower pregnancy-specific distress [19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Preis H, Mahaffey B, Heiselman C, Lobel M (2020) Pandemic-related pregnancy stress and anxiety among women pregnant during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2:100155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100155 source

      The Study Design lists the factors assessed but does not include emotional social support. The Results examine pandemic-related pregnancy stress and anxiety, not whether social support is associated with lower pregnancy-specific distress (searched: emotional social support, social support, pregnancy-specific distress). (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [19] Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB (2007) Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J Traum Stress 20:1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271 source
  • Findingown data

    Taking the survey later in the pandemic was associated with higher general prenatal distress (B=0.066, p<0.05).

    “Those who took the survey later in the pandemic had higher levels of general prenatal distress (B = 0.066, p < 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    33.3% of respondents were worried about COVID-19 stress interfering with maternal bonding.

    “followed by worries about COVID-19 stress interfering with maternal bonding (33.3%)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Cohabitating with a partner was marginally associated with lower general prenatal stress (B=-0.061, p<0.1).

    “Cohabitating with a partner was marginally associated with lower general prenatal stress (B = − 0.061, p < 0.1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
  • May combine two claims. 10
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 2
  • Borderline on S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based): unclear from the text.

    Findingnone given

    A pre-existing PTSD diagnosis was marginally associated with COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.

    “A pre-existing PTSD diagnosis was marginally associated with COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The sample was mostly White (92.9%) and highly educated (90.5% college educated), with over 40% reporting household income above $150,000.

    “Women were on average 32.5 years of age, with the large majority college educated (90.5%), White (92.9%) and cohabitating with their partners (98.3%). More than 40% reported a household income of more than $150,000.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Instrumental support, but not emotional support, was marginally linked to COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.

    “Instrumental support but not emotional support was marginally associated (p < 0.1) with COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Distress tolerance seemed to protect against both general and COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.

    “rather, it was distress tolerance that appeared to protect against general prenatal distress and COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The 8-item COVID-19-specific prenatal distress measure had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81, indicating good reliability.

    “Cronbach’s alpha for measure items was 0.81, indicating good reliability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The COVID-19 pandemic is a new source of stress with unique implications for parents and those preparing for childbirth.

    “The COVID-19 pandemic represents a new source of stress with unique implications for parents and those preparing for childbirth [16], which we refer to as COVID-19-specific prenatal distress.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Liu CH, Doan SN (2020) Psychosocial stress contagion in children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 59:853–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922820927044 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The PDQ had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.78, indicating good reliability.

    “The Cronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was 0.78 indicating good reliability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The findings rely only on self-report, which is subjective and not diagnostic, and may be affected by recall bias.

    “Third, the results are solely based on the self-report, including the self-screening for mental health symptoms, which is subjective and not diagnostic. Thus, our data, as with other survey studies, may be subject to problems related to recall bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study embedded attention checks and human verification, and staff visually inspected data to ensure data quality.

    “To ensure data quality, several attention checks and human verification were embedded throughout the survey. Furthermore, study staff visually inspected data to detect any response irregularities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The regression models controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, pre-existing mental health diagnoses, and current mental health symptoms.

    “The regression models included covariates and predictor variables that were entered through the following steps: sociodemographic characteristics (Block 1), pre-existing mental health diagnoses (depression, generalized anxiety, PTSD; Block 2), current mental health symptoms (depression, generalized anxiety, PTSD; Block 3), and protective factors (instrumental support, emotional support, resilience”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study used convenience sampling, which likely over-represented White women and those with higher socioeconomic status.

    “First, although we were able to collect data nationwide, the study utilized a convenience sampling approach. This is likely to have led to an over-representation of White women and those who are higher in socioeconomic status”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
11 of 11

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, C. H., Hyun, S., Erdei, C., & Mittal, L.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, Cindy H.
Venue
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Published
2021-10-30
Volume
306
Issue
2
Pages
397-405
ISSN
  • 0003-9128 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0711
OpenAlex
W3210577594
Cited by
11
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23 MH 107714-01 A1, T32 MH016259)
  • Mary A. Tynan Faculty Fellowship
  • Weinberg and Barton Families
  • Family Health and Resiliency Fund
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › COVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Keywords
prenatal distress, COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women, risk and protective factors, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, distress tolerance, instrumental support, hospitalization anxiety, mindfulness-based interventions
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Anxiety, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Stress, Psychological, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review