Cited by 4COVID-19 Impact on ReproductionMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Knights in shining armour and (M)others in life jackets: Women’s experiences of advocating for care alone when suffering recurrent early pregnancy loss during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Open access
Kent-Nye, Flora E., Sheen, Kayleigh S., Burgess, Karen, Oza, Munira, Magee, Laura A., Jurković, Davor, Silverio, Sergio A.·2025·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recurrent early pregnancy loss [rEPL] is a traumatic experience, marked by feelings such as grief and depression, and often anxiety. Despite this, the psychological consequences of rEPL are often overlooked, particularly when considering future reproductive health or approaching subsequent pregnancies. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to significant reconfiguration of maternity care and a negative impact on the perinatal experience, but the specific impact on women's experience of rEPL has yet to be explored. This study aimed to examine the impact of changes to early pregnancy loss care and social restrictions during the pandemic on women's experience of rEPL. METHODS: A qualitative interview study design was employed, with semi-structured interviews conducted virtually. A total of 16 women who had suffered two or more early pregnancy losses (≤ 14 weeks gestation) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United Kingdom participated. Data were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by hand, following a Classical Grounded Theory Analysis, appropriate for cross-disciplinary health research. RESULTS: Iterative and inductive analysis generated the theory 'Knights in Shining Armour and (M)others in Life Jackets', which describes women's experience of advocating for care alone, when suffering rEPL during the pandemic. This theory was derived from the way in which three emergent themes inter-related: (1) Dismantling Validation; (2) Preserving an Identity of Motherhood; and (3) Support Waning. CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms recent findings of devalued maternity care during the pandemic, and magnification of pre-pandemic issues with EPL care, such as a lack of support or perceived empathy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-024-20882-2

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The pandemic intensified pre-existing vulnerabilities and profoundly reshaped the experience of perinatal grief, with potentially long-lasting consequences.

    “The pandemic not only intensified pre-existing vulnerabilities but also profoundly reshaped the experience of perinatal grief (60–62), with potentially long-lasting consequences.”

    From Experiences and long-term repercussions of perinatal grief in women after perinatal bereavement: a meta-ethnography (2025) · cites this paper as [60]

    The Discussion (Summary of main findings; page unavailable) says pandemic-specific circumstances magnified pre-existing problems in early pregnancy loss care and intensified isolation during bereavement. The Conclusion (page unavailable) describes enduring psychosocial effects. The study concerns women experiencing recurrent early pregnancy loss, however, so it does not establish the claim for perinatal grief more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [10]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE guideline [NG126]. Ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage: Diagnosis and initial management. NICE. 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng126 35267247
  2. [46]Wainrib BR. Gender issues across the life cycle. Springer Publishing Company; 1992.
  3. [49]Guba E, Lincoln Y. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE; 1994. pp. 105–17.
  4. [51]Taghipour A. Adopting Constructivist versus Objectivist grounded theory in Health Care Research: a review of the evidence. J Midwifery Reproductive Health. 2014. 10.22038/JMRH.2014.2434. · DOI
  5. [53]Silverio SA. A man in women’s studies research: Privileged in more than one sense. In: Clift BC, Hatchard J, Gore J, editors. How do we belong? Researcher positionality within qualitative inquiry. Bath, United Kingdom: University of Bath; 2018. pp. 39–48.
  6. [55]Birks MMJ. Grounded theory: a practical guide. SAGE; 2015.
  7. [68]NICE. (2021). 2021 exceptional surveillance of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage: diagnosis and initial management (NICE guideline NG126). Surveillance report. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng126/resources/2021-exceptional-surveillance-of-ectopic-pregnancy-and-miscarriage-diagnosis-and-initial-management-nice-guideline-ng126-pdf-12005140975045. 35077090

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kent-Nye, F. E., Sheen, K. S., Burgess, K., Oza, M., Magee, L. A., Jurković, D., & Silverio, S. A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • The Ectopic Pregnancy Trust (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Silverio, Sergio A.
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2025-01-29
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
367-367
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406932323
Cited by
4
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR-INF-2170)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › COVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
recurrent early pregnancy loss, COVID-19 pandemic, women's experiences, obstetric care, maternal identity, validation, grief and depression, psychological impact, social restrictions, perinatal care
MeSH terms
Abortion, Habitual, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Female, United Kingdom, Grief, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Pregnancy, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, 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.

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