Objective: There has been an unprecedented rise in infant mortality associated with deprivation in recent years in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland. A healthy pregnancy can have significant impacts on the life chances of children. The objective of this review was to understand the association between individual-level and household-level measures of socioeconomic status and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Nine databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, ASSIA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, MIDRIS and Google Scholar) for articles published between 1999 and August 2019. Grey literature searches were also assessed. Study selection criteria: Studies reporting associations between individual-level or household socioeconomic factors on pregnancy outcomes in the UK or Ireland. Results: Among the 82 353 search results, 53 821 titles were identified and 35 unique studies met the eligibility criteria. Outcomes reported were neonatal, perinatal and maternal mortality, preterm birth, birth weight and mode of delivery. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. There were significantly increased odds of women from lower levels of occupation/social classes compared with the highest level having stillbirth (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.59, I ² 98.62% ), neonatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.57, I ² 97.09% ), perinatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.57, I ² 98.69% ), preterm birth (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.50, I ² 70.97% ) and low birth weight (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61, I ² 99.85% ). Limitations relate to available data, unmeasured confounders and the small number of studies for some outcomes. Conclusions: This review identified consistent evidence that lower occupational status, especially manual occupations and unemployment, were significantly associated with increased risk of multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes. Strategies to improve pregnancy outcomes should incorporate approaches that address wider determinants of health to provide women and families with the best chances of having a healthy pregnancy and baby and to decrease pregnancy-related health inequalities in the general population. PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019140893.

Children with congenital anomalies have poorer intellectual and cognitive development compared to their peers, but evidence for academic achievement using objective measures is lacking. We aimed to summarize and synthesize evidence on academic outcomes and special education needs (SEN) of school‐aged children born with selected major structural congenital anomalies. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest Natural Science and Education Collections), reference lists and citations for 1990–2020 were systematically searched. We included original‐research articles on academic achievement in children with non‐syndromic congenital anomalies that involved school test results, standardized tests and/or SEN data. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed to estimate pooled mean test scores in mathematics and/or reading where possible and pooled odds ratios (ORs) for SEN in children with severe congenital heart defects (CHDs) and children with orofacial clefts (OFCs). Thirty‐nine eligible studies (n = 21,066 children) were synthesized narratively. Sixteen studies were included in meta‐analyses. Children with non‐syndromic congenital anomalies were at a higher risk of academic underachievement than controls across school levels. Children with severe CHD (pooled OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.90, 2.82), and children with OFC (OR = 1.38 (95% CI: 1.20, 1.57), OR = 3.07 (95% CI: 2.65, 3.56), and OR = 3.96 (95% CI: 3.31, 4.72) for children with cleft lip, cleft palate and cleft lip/palate, respectively) had significantly higher ORs for SEN than controls. Children with non‐syndromic congenital anomalies underperform academically and have higher SEN rates compared to their peers. Early monitoring and development of differential SEN are important to promote academic progress in these children.

Objectives To review the evidence on how pregnancy, birth experience, breast feeding, parental responsiveness and sensitivity, and bonding and attunement were impacted by COVID-19. Methods We searched eight literature databases and websites of relevant UK-based organisations. The review focused on evidence during pregnancy and the early years (0–5 years). Studies of any study design published in English from 1 March 2020 to 15 March 2021 and conducted in high-income countries were included. Screening and data extraction were undertaken in duplicate. Evidence was synthesised using a narrative approach. Study quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results The search yielded 9776 publications, of which 26 met our inclusion criteria. Significant knowledge gaps on how COVID-19 affected pregnancy and breast feeding limited healthcare providers’ ability to provide consistent evidence-based information and care at the start of the pandemic. There was an enduring sense of loss about loved ones being restricted from taking part in key moments. Parents were concerned about the limitations of virtual healthcare provision. Some parents reported more opportunities for responsive breast feeding and improved parent–infant bonding due to reduced social and work pressures. Women from minoritised ethnic groups were less likely to continue breast feeding and attributed this to a lack of face-to-face support. Conclusions The evidence suggests that new and expectant families have been both negatively and positively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions. The impacts on parents’ opportunities to bond with their young children and to be attuned to their needs were felt unequally. It is important that emergency response policies consider the mother and the partner as a family unit when making changes to the delivery of maternal and child health and care services, so as to mitigate the impact on the family and existing health inequalities. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236769.

Background National lockdowns in England due to COVID-19 resulted in rapid shifts in healthcare provision, including in primary care where most contraceptive prescriptions are issued. This study aimed to investigate contraception prescribing trends in primary care during the pandemic and the impact of socioeconomic deprivation. Methods Prescribing data were accessed from the English Prescribing Dataset for the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020–28 February 2021) and the year prior (1 March 2019–29 February 2020). Data were analysed by geographical region (London, Midlands and East of England, North of England, South of England) and contraceptive type (progestogen-only pill (POP), combined oral contraception (COC), emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) and contraceptive injections). Differences in prescribing rates were calculated using Poisson regression. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores for each Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in the North East and North Cumbria (NENC). Results Contraception prescribing rates decreased overall during the COVID-19 pandemic in England (Poisson regression coefficient (β)=−0.035), with a statistically significant (p0.05). Conclusions Contraception provision was impacted by COVID-19 with an overall decrease in prescribing rates. The deprivation results suggest that this may not be a significant contributing factor to this decrease. Further research is recommended to better understand these changes, and to ensure that services respond appropriately to population needs.

Objectives: No copper intrauterine device (IUD) type is known to better suit young nulliparous women who tend to experience higher rates of IUD discontinuation compared with their older parous counterparts. A systematic review to determine which IUDs have higher continuation rates in young nulliparous women was undertaken. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses of available evidence based on IUD type. Data sources: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, TRIP, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from inception to 11 May 2022; as well as the Bandolier, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Department of Health, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines, WHO and Google Scholar websites. Eligibility criteria: All studies on IUDs currently available in the UK or comparable (same design and size) to those available in the UK, involving nulliparous women of any age including those aged under 30. Data extraction and synthesis: Independently extracted data were assessed as low risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Random effects meta-analyses of proportions were performed where data, including subgroups, were amenable to quantitative synthesis. Heterogeneity was reported using tau ² and I ² statistics, and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: Nineteen studies involving 13 045 nulliparous women were included but the heterogeneity of participant ages, parity and IUD types made quantitative synthesis of outcome data in totality inappropriate. The highest continuation rate obtained was 91.02% (95% CI 88.01% to 93.64%) for the smaller TCu 380A at 12 months post insertion. Conclusions: Evidence for IUD use in young nulliparous women based on IUD type remains limited. Smaller sized IUD types appear better suited to this group of IUD users, however, more research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019120969.