Breastfeeding during COVID-19: A Narrative Review of the Psychological Impact on Mothers

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the normal course of life, with measures to reduce the virus spread impacting motherhood expectations and, in particular, breastfeeding practices. This study aimed to review evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on breastfeeding plans and how these relate to women’s psychological outcomes. Searches were conducted on PubMed and Web of Science for studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese between January 2020 and January 2021. All study designs and pre-prints were considered. Twelve studies were included. Reports suggest that COVID-19 impacts differently on breastfeeding plans, which in turn leads to distinctive mental health outcomes. Positive breastfeeding experiences have been observed when mothers perceive that they have more time for motherhood, which may be associated with better mental health outcomes. Negative breastfeeding experiences have been observed when mothers are separated from their newborns, when mothers struggle with breastfeeding, or when mothers perceive decreased family and professional support, which seems to be associated with worse mental health outcomes. These preliminary results highlight the need for further research into the association between COVID-19, breastfeeding expectations, and maternal mental health. Filling this gap will foster the development of guidelines and interventions to better support mothers experiencing the obstacles of COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on perinatal mental health (Riseup-PPD-COVID-19): protocol for an international prospective cohort study

Background: Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) is a new pandemic, declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization, which could have negative consequences for pregnant and postpartum women. The scarce evidence published to date suggests that perinatal mental health has deteriorated since the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the few studies published so far have some limitations, such as a cross-sectional design and the omission of important factors for the understanding of perinatal mental health, including governmental restriction measures and healthcare practices implemented at the maternity hospitals. Within the Riseup-PPD COST Action, a study is underway to assess the impact of COVID-19 in perinatal mental health. The primary objectives are to (1) evaluate changes in perinatal mental health outcomes; and (2) determine the risk and protective factors for perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we will compare the results between the countries participating in the study. Methods: This is an international prospective cohort study, with a baseline and three follow-up assessments over a six-month period. It is being carried out in 11 European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), Argentina, Brazil and Chile. The sample consists of adult pregnant and postpartum women (with infants up to 6 months of age). The assessment includes measures on COVID-19 epidemiology and public health measures (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker dataset), Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences (COPE questionnaires), psychological distress (BSI-18), depression (EPDS), anxiety (GAD-7) and post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSD checklist for DSM-V). Discussion: This study will provide important information for understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perinatal mental health and well-being, including the identification of potential risk and protective factors by implementing predictive models using machine learning techniques. The findings will help policymakers develop suitable guidelines and prevention strategies for perinatal mental health and contribute to designing tailored mental health interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04595123.The project is part of the COST Action Riseup-PPD CA 18138 and was supported by COST under COST Action Riseup-PPD CA18138; also, by the Spanish Ministry of Health, the Institute of Health Carlos III, and the European Regional Development Fund «Una manera de hacer Europa» by the Prevention and Health Promotion Research Network ‘redIAPP’ (RD16/0007). Raquel Costa is supported by the FSE and FCT under an individual Post-Doctoral Grant SFRH/BPD/117597/2016. Rena Bina and Drorit Levy received funding from the Bar-Ilan Dangoor Centre for Personalized Medicine, Israel. Ana Mesquita is supported from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and from EU through the European Social Fund and from the Human Potential Operational Program - IF/00750/2015. Ana Osório received financial support from CAPES/Proex no. 0653/2018 and CAPES/PrInt grant no. 88887.310343/2018-00.The funders of the study had no role in the study design or the writing the protocol. The corresponding author had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on perinatal mental health (Riseup-PPD-COVID-19): protocol for an international prospective cohort study

Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) is a new pandemic, declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization, which could have negative consequences for pregnant and postpartum women. The scarce evidence published to date suggests that perinatal mental health has deteriorated since the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the few studies published so far have some limitations, such as a cross-sectional design and the omission of important factors for the understanding of perinatal mental health, including governmental restriction measures and healthcare practices implemented at the maternity hospitals. Within the Riseup-PPD COST Action, a study is underway to assess the impact of COVID-19 in perinatal mental health. The primary objectives are to (1) evaluate changes in perinatal mental health outcomes; and (2) determine the risk and protective factors for perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we will compare the results between the countries participating in the study

The effect of cathodal tDCS on fear extinction: A cross-measures study

Background Extinction-based procedures are often used to inhibit maladaptive fear responses. However, because extinction procedures show efficacy limitations, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been suggested as a promising add-on enhancer. Objective In this study, we tested how cathodal tDCS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affects extinction and tried to unveil the processes at play that boost the effectiveness of extinction procedures and its translational potential to the treatment of anxiety disorders. Methods We implemented a fear conditioning paradigm whereby 41 healthy women (mean age = 20.51 ± 5.0) were assigned to either cathodal tDCS (n = 27) or sham tDCS (n = 16). Fear responses were measured with self-reports, autonomic responses, and implicit avoidance tendencies. Results Cathodal tDCS shows no statistically significant effect in extinction, according to self-reports, and seems to even negatively affect fear conditioned skin conductance responses. However, one to three months after the tDCS session and extinction, we found a group difference in the action tendencies towards the neutral stimuli (F (1, 41) = 12.04, p = .001, ηp2 = .227), with the cathodal tDCS group (as opposed to the sham group) showing a safety learning (a positive bias towards the CS-), with a moderate effect size. This suggests that cathodal tDCS may foster stimuli discrimination, leading to a decreased generalization effect. Discussion Cathodal tDCS may have enhanced long-term distinctiveness between threatening cues and perceptively similar neutral cues through a disambiguation process of the value of the neutral stimuli—a therapeutic target in anxiety disorders. Future studies should confirm these results and extend the study of cathodal tDCS effect on short term avoidance tendencies

The effect of cathodal tDCS on fear extinction: a cross-measures study

BackgroundExtinction-based procedures are often used to inhibit maladaptive fear responses. However, because extinction procedures show efficacy limitations, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been suggested as a promising add-on enhancer.ObjectiveIn this study, we tested how cathodal tDCS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affects extinction and tried to unveil the processes at play that boost the effectiveness of extinction procedures and its translational potential to the treatment of anxiety disorders.MethodsWe implemented a fear conditioning paradigm whereby 41 healthy women (mean age = 20.51 +/- 5.0) were assigned to either cathodal tDCS (n = 27) or sham tDCS (n = 16). Fear responses were measured with self-reports, autonomic responses, and implicit avoidance tendencies.ResultsCathodal tDCS shows no statistically significant effect in extinction, according to selfreports, and seems to even negatively affect fear conditioned skin conductance responses. However, one to three months after the tDCS session and extinction, we found a group difference in the action tendencies towards the neutral stimuli (F (1, 41) = 12.04, p =.001,.p2 =.227), with the cathodal tDCS group (as opposed to the sham group) showing a safety learning (a positive bias towards the CS-), with a moderate effect size. This suggests that cathodal tDCS may foster stimuli discrimination, leading to a decreased generalization effect.DiscussionCathodal tDCS may have enhanced long-term distinctiveness between threatening cues and perceptively similar neutral cues through a disambiguation process of the value of the neutral stimuli-a therapeutic target in anxiety disorders. Future studies should confirm these results and extend the study of cathodal tDCS effect on short term avoidance tendencies.- AGA is supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal and Programa COMPETE [grants numbers SFRH/BD/80945/2011, PTDC/MHC-PAP/5618/2014 (POCI-01-0145FEDER-016836); http://www.poci-compete2020.pt/].JA is supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal and Programa COMPETE [grants numbers PTDC/MHC-PAP/5618/2014 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016836), PTDC/MHC-PCN/3575/2012, PTDC/MHC-PCN/0522/2014, PTDC/MHC-PCN/6805/2014; https://www.fct.pt/index.phtml.en].The Cognitive and Behavioral Center for Research and Intervention of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Coimbra is supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement [UID/PSI/01662/2013; https://www.portugal2020.pt].The Psychology Research Centre of the University of Minho is supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER007653). The Proaction Laboratory and the PTDC/MHC-PAP/5618/2014 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER016836) directly supported this research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation in decreasing depression symptoms during the peripartum period: A systematic review

Ana Osorio received financial support from CAPES/Proex (grant no. 0653/2018). Ana Osorio and Ana Ganho-Avila received support from CAPES/PrInt (grant no. 88887.310343/2018-00).Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been suggested as alternative treatments to decrease depression symptoms during the perinatal period. These include brain stimulation techniques that do not require surgery and that are nonpharmacological and non-psychotherapeutic. NIBS with evidence of antidepressant effects include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial electric stimulation (TES) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Objectives: This systematic review aims to summarize evidence on NIBS efficacy, safety and acceptability in treating peripartum depression (PPD). Methods: We included randomized, non-randomized and case reports, that used NIBS during pregnancy and the postpartum. The reduction of depressive symptoms and neonatal safety were the primary and co-primary outcomes, respectively. Results: rTMS shows promising results for the treatment of PPD, with clinically significant decreases in depressive symptoms between baseline and end of treatment and overall good acceptability. Although the safety profile for rTMS is adequate in the postpartum, caution is warranted during pregnancy. In TES, evidence on efficacy derives mostly from single-arm studies, compromising the encouraging findings. Further investigation is necessary concerning ECT, as clinical practice relies on clinical experience and is only described in low-quality case-reports. Limitations: The reduced number of controlled studies, the lack of complete datasets and the serious/high risk of bias of the reports warrant cautious interpretations. Conclusions and implications: Existing evidence is limited across NIBS techniques; comparative studies are lacking, and standard stimulation parameters are yet to be established. Although rTMS benefits from the most robust research, future multicenter randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the position of each NIBS strategy within the pathways of care.Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) 0653/2018CAPES/PrInt 88887.310343/2018-0

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation in decreasing depression symptoms during the peripartum period: A systematic review

Background: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been suggested as alternative treatments to decrease depression symptoms during the perinatal period. These include brain stimulation techniques that do not require surgery and that are nonpharmacological and non-psychotherapeutic. NIBS with evidence of antidepressant effects include repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial electric stimulation (TES) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Objectives: This systematic review aims to summarize evidence on NIBS efficacy, safety and acceptability in treating peripartum depression (PPD). Methods: We included randomized, non-randomized and case reports, that used NIBS during pregnancy and the postpartum. The reduction of depressive symptoms and neonatal safety were the primary and co-primary outcomes, respectively. Results: rTMS shows promising results for the treatment of PPD, with clinically significant decreases in depressive symptoms between baseline and end of treatment and overall good acceptability. Although the safety profile for rTMS is adequate in the postpartum, caution is warranted during pregnancy. In TES, evidence on efficacy derives mostly from single-arm studies, compromising the encouraging findings. Further investigation is necessary concerning ECT, as clinical practice relies on clinical experience and is only described in low-quality case-reports. Limitations: The reduced number of controlled studies, the lack of complete datasets and the serious/high risk of bias of the reports warrant cautious interpretations. Conclusions and implications: Existing evidence is limited across NIBS techniques; comparative studies are lacking, and standard stimulation parameters are yet to be established. Although rTMS benefits from the most robust research, future multicenter randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the position of each NIBS strategy within the pathways of care

Measuring vulnerability to anxiety: factorial structure, reliability, validity, and discriminatory accuracy of the anxiety sensitivity index-3-PT

We evaluated the Portuguese version of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index 3 (ASI-3-PT). Results of a confirmatory factor analysis (N = 603; 65.3% women, M age = 28.55, SD = 10.42) confirmed multidimensionality of the construct and the receiver operating characteristic confirmed the discriminant capacity of the measure between clinical and nonclinical samples.This work was supported by a Foundation for Science and Technology, Portugal and Programa COMPETE Doctoral Grant SFRH/BD/80945/2011 to Ana Ganho-Avila, and a Post-Doctoral Grant SFRH/BPD/87514/2012 to Mariana Moura-Ramos. This study was partially conducted at Psychology Research Centre (UID/PSI/01662/2013), University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007653)