Negative maternal affect (e.g., depression and anxiety) has been associated with shorter breastfeeding duration and poorer breastfeeding intention, initiation, and exclusivity. Other affective states, including guilt and shame, have been linked with formula feeding practice, though existing literature has yet to be synthesised. A narrative synthesis of quantitative data and a framework synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data were conducted to explore guilt and/or shame in relation to infant feeding outcomes. Searches were conducted on the DISCOVER database between December 2017 and March 2018. The search strategy was rerun in February 2020, together yielding 467 studies. The study selection process identified 20 articles, published between 1997 and 2017. Quantitative results demonstrated formula feeders experienced guilt more commonly than breastfeeding mothers. Formula feeders experienced external guilt most commonly associated with healthcare professionals, whereas breastfeeding mothers experienced guilt most commonly associated with peers and family. No quantitative literature examined shame in relation to infant feeding outcomes, warranting future research. The framework synthesis generated four distinct themes which explored guilt and/or shame in relation to infant feeding outcomes: ‘underprepared and ineffectively supported’, ‘morality and perceived judgement’ (breastfeeding), ‘frustration with infant feeding care’ and ‘failures, fears and forbidden practice’ (formula feeding). Both guilt and shame were associated with self‐perception as a bad mother and poorer maternal mental health. Guilt and shame experiences were qualitatively different in terms of sources and outcomes, dependent on infant feeding method. Suggestions for tailored care to minimise guilt and shame, while supporting breastfeeding, are provided.

Background: COVID-19 has placed additional stressors on mothers during an already vulnerable lifecourse transition. Initial social distancing restrictions (Timepoint 1; T1) and initial changes to those social distancing restrictions (Timepoint 2; T2) have disrupted postpartum access to practical and emotional support. This qualitative study explores the postpartum psychological experiences of UK women during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated ‘lockdowns’. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 women, approximately 30 days after initial social distancing guidelines were imposed in the UK (22 April 2020). A separate 12 women were interviewed approximately 30 days after the initial easing of social distancing restrictions (10 June 2020). Data were transcribed verbatim, uploaded into NVivo for management and analysis, which followed a recurrent cross-sectional approach to thematic analysis. Results: Two main themes were identified for T1: ‘Motherhood is Much Like Lockdown’ and ‘A Self-Contained Family Unit’. Each main T1 theme contained two sub-themes. Two main themes were also identified for T2: ‘Incongruously Held Views of COVID-19’ and ‘Mothering Amidst the Pandemic’. Each main T2 theme contained three sub-themes. Comparisons between data gathered at each timepoint identified increased emotional distress over time. Current findings call for the improvement of postpartum care by improving accessibility to social support, and prioritising the re-opening of schools, and face-to-face healthcare appointments and visitation. Conclusion: Social distancing restrictions associated with COVID-19 have had a cumulative, negative effect on postpartum mental health. Recommendations such as: Allowing mothers to ‘bubble’ with a primary support provider even at their healthcare appointments; allowing one support partner to attend all necessary healthcare appointments; and providing tailored informational resources, may help to support postpartum emotional wellbeing during this, and similar health crises in the future.