In this paper, we highlight the need for acknowledging the importance and impact of both physical and emotional closeness between the preterm infant and parent in the neonatal intensive care unit. Physical closeness refers to being spatially close and emotional closeness to parental feelings of being emotionally connected to the infant (experiencing feelings of love, warmth and affection). Through consideration of the literature in this area, we outline some of the reasons why physical closeness and emotional closeness are crucial to the physical, emotional and social well-being of both the infant and the parent. These include positive effects on infant brain development, parent psychological well-being and on the parent–infant relationship. The influence of the neonatal unit environment and culture on physical and emotional closeness is also discussed.ConclusionsCulturally sensitive care practices, procedures and the physical environment need to be considered to facilitate parent–infant closeness, such as through early and prolonged skin-to-skin contact, family-centred care, increased visiting hours, family rooms and optimization of the space on the units. Further research is required to explore factors that facilitate both physical and emotional closeness to ensure that parent–infant closeness is a priority within neonatal care.

Abstract:1 Emotions such as guilt and blame are frequently reported by non-breastfeeding mothers, and 2 fear and humiliation is experienced by breastfeeding mothers when feeding in a public 3 context. In this paper we present new insights into how shame-related affects, cognitions and 4 actions are evident within breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women's narratives of their

BackgroundResearch shows evidence for the importance of physical and emotional closeness for the infant, the parent and the infant-parent dyad. Less is known about how, when and why parents experience emotional closeness to their infants in a neonatal unit (NU), which was the aim of this study.MethodsA qualitative study using a salutogenic approach to focus on positive health and wellbeing was undertaken in three NUs: one in Sweden, England and Finland. An ‘emotional closeness’ form was devised, which asked parents to describe moments/situations when, how and why they had felt emotionally close to their infant. Data for 23 parents of preterm infants were analyzed using thematic networks analysis.ResultsA global theme of ‘pathways for emotional closeness’ emerged from the data set. This concept related to how emotional, physical, cognitive and social influences led to feelings of emotional closeness between parents and their infants. The five underpinning organising themes relate to the: Embodied recognition through the power of physical closeness; Reassurance of, and contributing to, infant wellness; Understanding the present and the past; Feeling engaged in the day to day and Spending time and bonding as a family.ConclusionThese findings generate important insights into why, how and when parents feel emotionally close. This knowledge contributes to an increased awareness of how to support parents of premature infants to form positive and loving relationships with their infants. Health care staff should create a climate where parents’ emotions and their emotional journey are individually supported.

this synthesis reveals how a traumatic birth experience can lead to women being drawn into a turmoil of devastating emotions that have long-term, negative repercussions on self-identity and relationships. Professionals require training, awareness and skill development to prevent against trauma and to enable them to identify and sensitively respond to women's psychosocial concerns. Further insights and research into the timing and type of interventions to resolve postnatal morbidity following a traumatic birth are needed.

Research to further understand the experience and actualization of 'last resort' in the use of restraint and to provide strategies to prevent restraint use in mental health settings are needed.

BackgroundSmoking in pregnancy and/or not breastfeeding have considerable negative health outcomes for mother and baby.AimTo understand incentive mechanisms of action for smoking cessation in pregnancy and breastfeeding, develop a taxonomy and identify promising, acceptable and feasible interventions to inform trial design.DesignEvidence syntheses, primary qualitative survey, and discrete choice experiment (DCE) research using multidisciplinary, mixed methods. Two mother-and-baby groups in disadvantaged areas collaborated throughout.SettingUK.ParticipantsThe qualitative study included 88 pregnant women/recent mothers/partners, 53 service providers, 24 experts/decision-makers and 63 conference attendees. The surveys included 1144 members of the general public and 497 health professionals. The DCE study included 320 women with a history of smoking.Methods(1) Evidence syntheses: incentive effectiveness (including meta-analysis and effect size estimates), delivery processes, barriers to and facilitators of smoking cessation in pregnancy and/or breastfeeding, scoping review of incentives for lifestyle behaviours; (2) qualitative research: grounded theory to understand incentive mechanisms of action and a framework approach for trial design; (3) survey: multivariable ordered logit models; (4) DCE: conditional logit regression and the log-likelihood ratio test.ResultsOut of 1469 smoking cessation and 5408 breastfeeding multicomponent studies identified, 23 smoking cessation and 19 breastfeeding studies were included in the review. Vouchers contingent on biochemically proven smoking cessation in pregnancy were effective, with a relative risk of 2.58 (95% confidence interval 1.63 to 4.07) compared with non-contingent incentives for participation (four studies, 344 participants). Effects continued until 3 months post partum. Inconclusive effects were found for breastfeeding incentives compared with no/smaller incentives (13 studies) but provider commitment contracts for breastfeeding show promise. Intervention intensity is a possible confounder. The acceptability of seven promising incentives was mixed. Women (for vouchers) and those with a lower level of education (except for breastfeeding incentives) were more likely to disagree. Those aged ≤ 44 years and ethnic minority groups were more likely to agree. Agreement was greatest for a free breast pump and least for vouchers for breastfeeding. Universal incentives were preferred to those targeting low-income women. Initial daily text/telephone support, a quitting pal, vouchers for > £20.00 per month and values up to £80.00 increase the likelihood of smoking cessation. Doctors disagreed with provider incentives. A ‘ladder’ logic model emerged through data synthesis and had face validity with service users. It combined an incentive typology and behaviour change taxonomy. Autonomy and well-being matter. Personal difficulties, emotions, socialising and attitudes of others are challenges to climbing a metaphorical ‘ladder’ towards smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Incentive interventions provide opportunity ‘rungs’ to help, including regular skilled flexible support, a pal, setting goals, monitoring and outcome verification. Individually tailored and non-judgemental continuity of care can bolster women’s capabilities to succeed. Rigid, prescriptive interventions placing the onus on women to behave ‘healthily’ risk them feeling pressurised and failing. To avoid ‘losing face’, women may disengage.LimitationsIncluded studies were heterogeneous and of variable quality, limiting the assessment of incentive effectiveness. No cost-effectiveness data were reported. In surveys, selection bias and confounding are possible. The validity and utility of the ladder logic model requires evaluation with more diverse samples of the target population.ConclusionsIncentives provided with other tailored components show promise but reach is a concern. Formal evaluation is recommended. Collaborative service-user involvement is important.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001980.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background Many women use pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief during childbirth. Evidence from Cochrane reviews shows that effective pain relief is not always associated with high maternal satisfaction scores. However, understanding women’s views is important for good quality maternity care provision. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of women’s views and experiences of pharmacological (epidural, opioid analgesia) and non-pharmacological (relaxation, massage techniques) pain relief options, to understand what affects women’s decisions and choices and to inform guidelines, policy, and practice. Methods We searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, AJOL), tracked citations and checked references. We used thematic and meta-ethnographic techniques for analysis purposes, and GRADE-CERQual tool to assess confidence in review findings. We developed review findings for each method. We then re-analysed the review findings thematically to highlight similarities and differences in women’s accounts of different pain relief methods . Results From 11,782 hits, we screened full 58 papers. Twenty-four studies provided findings for the synthesis: epidural ( n = 12), opioids ( n = 3), relaxation ( n = 8) and massage ( n = 4) – all conducted in upper-middle and high-income countries (HMICs). Re-analysis of the review findings produced five key themes. ‘ Desires for pain relief’ illuminates different reasons for using pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief. ‘Impact on pain’ describes varying levels of effectiveness of the methods used. ‘ Influence and experience of support’ highlights women’s positive or negative experiences of support from professionals and/or birth companions. ‘ Influence on focus and capabilities’ illustrates that all pain relief methods can facilitate maternal control, but some found non-pharmacological techniques less effective than anticipated, and others reported complications associated with medication use. Finally, ‘ impact on wellbeing and health’ reports that whilst some women were satisfied with their pain relief method, medication was associated with negative self-reprisals, whereas women taught relaxation techniques often continued to use these methods with beneficial outcomes. Conclusion Women report mixed experiences of different pain relief methods. Pharmacological methods can reduce pain but have negative side-effects. Non-pharmacological methods may not reduce labour pain but can facilitate bonding with professionals and birth supporters. Women need information on risks and benefits of all available pain relief methods.

No abstract