Even in the best of environments, the period following childbirth represents a time of heightened stress and vulnerability for most, if not all, new parents. The added effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on postpartum individuals have raised considerable concern among clinicians who treat pregnant and postpartum patients. Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated a differentiated postpartum response for those living in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic based on socioeconomic status. Specifically, while those of higher SES demonstrated no change in postpartum mood in light of the implementation of social restrictions in New York, those living in lower socioeconomic status expressed improved mood over the same time period. Notably, because those living in lower SES have been found to be the most vulnerable for postpartum mood dysregulation (35), these findings appear to have some important implications for public policy directed towards pregnant and postpartum patients living in lower SES.
This is the first study to show a differential response during the COVID-19 pandemic in postpartum mood among those living in urban poverty. Although numerous studies, natural and randomized-control, have sought to determine the mechanism(s) underlying the relationship between poverty and mental health, the causal direction remains indeterminate. Theories generally suppose one of two potential, albeit conflicting, routes; social selection and social causation (36). The social selection hypothesis posits that individuals with psychopathology will have reduced occupational skills, lower income, and therefore a lower SES. The literature supporting this “social drift” hypothesis however is problematic, in part, because subject samples tend to be young and unable to account for a familial income effect - with the exception of specific incidences such as when the child’s health issues reduces the parents’ ability to maintain their income. The alternative hypothesis, social causation proposes that people living in low SES develop psychiatric disorders as a result of adversity, including volatile income, limited support and material hardship. While the vast majority of research appears to support this hypothesis (37,38), it is equally probable that the nature of this relationship is cyclic, and that while living in poverty cultivates mental illness, the consequences of mental illness likely reinforce poverty. This is mirrored by the observation that increased rates of depression among new mothers in lower-SES are associated with the absence of spousal financial and social support, material deprivation and subjective standing (39) leading to their offspring being at greater risk for cognitive (40) and emotional challenges (41-43). If accurate, programs designed to mitigate the social determinants of postpartum mood dysregulation in those living in lower-SES could presumably offer an approach towards breaking the poverty cycle.
On March 12, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a global pandemic, and community-wide restrictions resulting in the closing of schools and non-essential business were mandated across New York State. While the vast majority of attention has been focused on the negative consequences of these actions (social and economic), recent observations have noted that the imposed social restrictions may have also had unanticipated positive effects on health and wellbeing (24). Indeed, the well understood social and economic factors which disproportionately impact mothers living in low SES such as unavailable childcare, limited partner and family support, and reduced time flexibility secondary to formal and informal employment obligations, which undoubtedly play a role in contributing to poorer maternal mental health (44), have in many cases, been ameliorated in light of these imposed restrictions. This contrasts to those women of higher SES where factors associated with perceived quality of daily life may have been disrupted in different ways (45).
Since the time of Aristotle, philosophers have discussed quality of life factors associated with human well-being that underlie self-perceptions of happiness (46). These differ from standards of living which are considered necessities for a healthy life (housing, food, education etc). Although constituting subjective and objective measures respectively, both have been targets of health policy designed to ameliorate the adverse effects of poverty on family mental health, often in the hopes of breaking the poverty cycle (47). To this point, an increasing body of research has consistently found that stressors of parenting which can be buffered by institutional support, such as parental leave, results in decreased stress, increased happiness and facilitates strengthening of the parent-child bond (48), particularly for those living in lower-SES (49). Given that maternal mental health is directly related to the long-term mental health of the offspring, and that the temporary implementation of social restrictions related to the COVID19 pandemic improved the postpartum mental health outcomes of a population at increased risk, further emphasizes the need to develop meaningful social policies to address the parental burdens of those living in urban poverty and towards the greater effort of interrupting the poverty cycle.
While these findings are important, we recognize some possible limitations. First, the population explored is a treatment-seeking clinical sample from care-based centers in New York City, and as convenience samples our findings may not represent the general population of socioeconomic diversity in New York City or the United States. This is a well-understood problem universal to all health registry-based studies where the outcome variables may only represent those agreeing to treatment, as opposed to the treatment capture of all postpartum patients. In this respect, despite the benefits of universal screening, we can only assess those patients who chose to travel, recognize the benefits, or had the means to virtually attend appointments – factors well understood to effect postpartum care utilization among those living in low-SES (50).
Importantly, the distinction between our method of universally screening all postpartum patients and previous studies exploring maternal mood during the COVID-19 pandemic (25-28) likely explains, at least in part, the differences in our findings compared to theirs. That is, they not only did not differentiate between SES, but in addition likely suffered from well understood methodological limitations associated with sampling bias in choosing only to study individuals who independently responded to social media announcements (25,26), anonymously e-mailed online survey requests (27) or other voluntary participation requests (28). Second, we were unable to analyze the data for demographic differences beyond SES. It is possible that there is a subgroup of postpartum patients (e.g. race, parity, delivery route) that may be disproportionally experiencing postpartum mood change, either increased or decreased, but the sample size would have been insufficiently powered to meaningfully identify any differences had these factors been used as covariates. This will therefore need to be further explored as the days of the pandemic continue, and our sample size increases thereby allowing for appropriate statistical power. Thirdly, it is possible that our observation was unrelated to pandemic restrictions and merely a cyclical mood artifact in response to the change in seasons that disproportionally impacts those postpartum individuals living in lower-SES. To assess for this possibility, we randomly generated a year of data corresponding to the dates observed (1/2/2015-6/30/2015) and ran similar analyses exploring for such a trend – no difference in mood was observed (Supplement 1), further supporting the pandemic restrictions as the modifier of the postpartum mood improvement in low SES patients.
The socio-economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic remain largely unknown as do the longer-term consequences of the imposed social restrictions. As we presumably remain in the early stages of the crisis, it is also possible that as the pandemic continues to extend and the impacts from unemployment, housing and childcare concerns become more acute, anxiety and depression among this population may increase. Indeed, while we currently see postpartum mood improvement among those living in lower-SES during restrictions, this may change with the eventual lifting of restrictions, the discontinuance of policies expanding access to maternal care, housing protections during the COVID-19 pandemic, government stipends and unemployment benefits. Further, with the potential permanent loss of employment and income secondary to the projected closing of many businesses following the lifting of restrictions (51), postpartum minority groups of lower-SES could ultimately suffer more acutely following the pandemic than those living in higher-SES, who generally have a greater ability to afford the high cost of childcare (52) and are more likely to be able to resume many of those aspects of their lives tied to improved health outcome.