Summary: A transformative approach to maternal health promotion should be mother-centred, context-driven and grounded in lived experiences. Health promotion can achieve this by drawing on its disciplinary roots to extend and reorient maternal health promotion towards an approach of non-stigmatizing and equitable health promotion that has mothers’ well-being at the centre, particularly giving credit to marginalized, ‘non-normative’ maternities. This article draws on data from 18 workshops EN conducted across Aotearoa New Zealand, including 268 maternal health stakeholders. Drawing on design thinking, participants reimagined what a maternal health promotion approach informed by the Ottawa Charter action areas could comprise. The five themes included building connected systems close to home, developing mothering/parenting skills, addressing upstream determinants, mother-centred care and funding, and creating a collective mothering village. We discuss how these areas could better meet the unique challenges of transitioning to motherhood. Rather than focussing only on individual behaviours, many ideas reveal broader environmental and structural determinants. We link the themes to current literature and advance the agenda for centring the maternal in maternal health promotion.

Background: Breastfeeding initiation and continuation rates are shaped by complex and interrelated determinants across individual, interpersonal, community, organisational, and policy spheres. Young mothers, however, face a double burden of stigma, being perceived as immature and incompetent in their mothering and breastfeeding abilities. In this study, we aimed to understand the experiences of young mothers who exclusively breastfed for six months and beyond and explore their experiences of stigma and active resistance through social media. Methods: In 2020, in-depth telephone interviews about breastfeeding experiences were conducted with 44 young mothers under age 25 in Aotearoa New Zealand who breastfed for six months or longer. Participants were recruited via social media. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: Analysis yielded four themes on young mothers’ negotiation of breastfeeding and support. The first three themes revealed young mothers’ encounters with socio-cultural contexts. They faced negative judgments about maturity and competence, adverse guidance to supplement or cease breastfeeding, and an undermining of their breastfeeding efforts. The fourth theme showed how young mothers sought alternative support in online environments to avoid negative interactions. Online spaces provided anonymity, convenience, experiential knowledge and social connections with shared values. This facilitated identity strengthening, empowerment and stigma resistance. Conclusion: Our research highlights the importance of online communities as a tool for young mothers to navigate and resist the societal stigmas surrounding breastfeeding. Online spaces can provide a unique structure that can help counteract the adverse effects of social and historical determinants on breastfeeding rates by fostering a sense of inclusion and support. These findings have implications for the development of breastfeeding promotion strategies for young mothers and highlight the potential of peer support in counteracting the negative impacts of stigma. The research also sheds light on the experiences of young mothers within the health professional relationship and the effects of stigma and cultural health capital on their engagement and withdrawal from services. Further research should examine how sociocultural barriers to breastfeeding stigmatise and marginalise young mothers and continue to reflect on their socio-political and economic positioning and how it can exacerbate inequities.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women/people were identified as an at-risk group of severe COVID-19 disease. Consequently, vaccine uptake among this group became a public health priority. However, the relationship between pregnancy and vaccination decision-making is complex, and the heightened uncertainty and anxiety produced through the pandemic further exacerbated this immunization decision. This study explores COVID-19 vaccination decision-making during pregnancy in Aotearoa New Zealand by using an online story completion survey tool. Ninety-five responses were received and analysed using thematic analysis where ambiguity was a core facet within and across stories. Three ambiguities were identified, including who makes the decision (agential), what the risks are (risk) and how immunity to this threat can be best achieved (immunity). We discuss the implications of this ambiguity and how the strong desire to protect the baby persisted across accounts. The recognition of the rather persistent ambiguity in vaccination decision-making helps conceptualize influencing factors taken into account in a more nuanced manner for further research, public health campaigns and health professionals. Future public health campaigns can consider redistributing responsibility for vaccination decision-making in pregnancy, traverse an either/or perspective of ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ immunity-boosting and consider how risk is perceived through anecdotes and viral immediacy.

Historical and enduring maternal health inequities and injustices continue to grow in Aotearoa New Zealand, despite attempts to address the problem. Pregnancy increases vulnerability to poverty through a variety of mechanisms. This project qualitatively analysed an open survey response from midwives about their experiences of providing maternity care to women living with social disadvantage. We used a structural violence lens to examine the effects of social disadvantage on pregnant women. The analysis of midwives’ narratives exposed three mechanisms by which women were exposed to structural violence, these included structural disempowerment, inequitable risk and the neoliberal system. Women were structurally disempowered through reduced access to agency, lack of opportunities and inadequate meeting of basic human needs. Disadvantage exacerbated risks inequitably by increasing barriers to care, exacerbating the impact of adverse life circumstances and causing chronic stress. Lastly, the neoliberal system emphasised individual responsibility that perpetuated inequities. Despite the stated aim of equitable access to health care for all in policy documents, the current system and social structure continues to perpetuate systemic disadvantage.