Is partners’ mental health and well-being affected by holding the baby after stillbirth? Mothers’ accounts from a national survey

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to assess the effects on partners’ health and well-being of holding a stillborn baby.

Background: Findings from quantitative and qualitative studies have produced inconsistent results concerning the effects of holding a stillborn baby on parents.

Methods: Secondary analyses were conducted on postal questionnaire data relating to 455 partners of women who had a stillbirth. Women answered questions about their partners’ behaviour, perceptions of care, mental health and well-being at three and nine months after the stillbirth. Demographic, clinical and care characteristics were compared between partners who, according to the mothers, did and did not hold their baby. Sub-group analyses assessed hypothesised moderating effects.

Results: Mothers reported that most partners saw (92%) and held (82%) their stillborn baby. However, partners born outside the UK were less likely to have held their baby. Higher gestational age, shorter time interval between antepartum death and delivery, and mother’s holding the baby all predicted a higher rate of partner’s holding. There was a consistent negative effect of holding the baby across mental health and well-being outcomes, although after adjustment only higher odds of depression (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.35–5.50) and post-traumatic stress type symptoms (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.01–3.78) at 3 months were significantly associated with having held the baby following stillbirth.

Conclusions: This study is the first to assess the impact of holding the baby on partners’ mental health and well-being. The prevalence of depression and anxiety were high, and the negative effects of holding the baby were significant 3 months later.

Keywords:

• Stillbirth
• infant contact
• touch
• bereavement
• partners
• fathers

Acknowledgements

Our particular thanks go to the women and their families who completed the survey and to the 10 bereaved mothers who helped develop the questionnaire and study materials. We are grateful to Charlotte Bevan, Janet Scott, Sue Hale, Judith Schott, Patrick Wilcockson and the helpline staff at Sands; Farrah Pradhan and Carmel Barrett at Bliss; Rachel Rowe, Jenny Kurinczuk and Marian Knight from the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, for their assistance in development of the materials and supporting the survey. Mark Gautrey and staff at the Office for National Statistics were responsible for drawing the sample and managing the mailings. We thank Jenny Kurinczuk for commenting on the manuscript.