Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of parents with young children: a qualitative interview study

Background Parents have faced unique challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including mobility constraints, isolation measures, working from home, and the closure of schools and childcare facilities. There is presently a lack of in-depth qualitative research exploring how these changes have affected parents’ mental health and wellbeing. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 29 parents of young children. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results We identified five superordinate themes affecting participant mental health and wellbeing: (1) navigation of multiple responsibilities and change inside the home; (2) disruption to home life; (3) changes to usual support networks; (4) changes in personal relationships; and (5) use of coping strategies. Participants described stress and exhaustion from navigating multiple pressures and conflicting responsibilities with home, schooling, and work, without their usual support networks and in the context of disrupted routines. Family roles and relationships were sometimes tested, however, many parents identified coping strategies that protected their wellbeing including access to outdoor space, spending time away from family, and avoiding conflict and pandemic-related media coverage. Conclusions Employers must be cognisant of the challenges that the pandemic has placed on parents, particularly women and lone parents. Flexible working arrangements and support might therefore relieve stress and increase productivity. Coping strategies identified by parents in this study could be harnessed and encouraged by employers and policymakers to promote positive wellbeing during times of stress throughout the pandemic and beyond.

Managing uncertainty: Lone parents' time horizons and agency in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective: This article shows the analytical value of an approach that integrates theoretical elaborations about the temporal orientations of different types of agency (pragmatic, identity, and life course) and uncertainty management, to analyse how families dealt with the challenges emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Background: The pandemic has been a major shock that has seriously challenged families' ability to adapt to sudden changes affecting multiple domains of life. Switzerland established a low-intensity lockdown in the spring of 2020, with social-distancing measures based on official recommendations. Changes in employment situations and school closures resulted in significant alterations to family life. This study examines how individuals with a trajectory of lone parenthood dealt with the increased uncertainties generated by this novel context. Method: Empirical data stems from the fourth wave of fieldwork of the longitudinal project "The multiple paths of lone parenthood", ongoing in French-speaking Switzerland since 2012–2013. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 participants between April and June 2020. Results: The emergence of novel situations, the ambiguity of social-distancing measures, and the breakdown of routines accentuated pragmatic agency for most families. With the chronification of uncertainty, parents sought to regain identity agency by restabilising everyday routines. Uncertainty about future developments diminished life course agency, especially for parents in more insecure situations. Conclusion: The study offers an original perspective on the challenges of living through increased uncertainty and changing environments triggered by the pandemic, by highlighting the relevance of temporalities for understanding agency within life course processes.

Welfare Regime Variation in the Impact of the Great Recession on Deprivation Levels: A Dynamic Perspective on Polarisation vs Convergence for Social Risk Groups, 2005–2014

This paper investigates changes over the period 2005 to 2014 in material deprivation dynamics of social risk groups in 11 European countries covering a range of welfare regimes. The period covered experienced dramatic economic change, encompassing periods of boom, the Great Recession and early recovery. Social risk groups are defined as groups which differ in the challenges that they face in converting resources into desired outcomes. The comparative element of the paper allows us to assess whether certain welfare regimes were better at protecting more vulnerable groups. Results, based on the longitudinal component of the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions and on analysis of deprivation dynamics between pairs of years, showed large inequality between groups in the risk of persistent deprivation – with lone parents and people with disability most at risk in all countries. Variation across welfare regimes was restricted to the contrast between the liberal and the remaining regimes. Countries belonging to the former regime (UK and Ireland) were distinctive in showing the largest social risk gap in persistent deprivation and were the only ones which experienced substantial polarisation between groups with the Great Recession.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of parents with young children: a qualitative interview study

Background Parents have faced unique challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including mobility constraints, isolation measures, working from home, and the closure of schools and childcare facilities. There is presently a lack of in-depth qualitative research exploring how these changes have affected parents mental health and wellbeing. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 29 parents of young children. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results We identified five superordinate themes affecting participant mental health and wellbeing: 1) navigation of multiple responsibilities and change inside the home; 2) disruption to home life; 3) changes to usual support networks; 4) changes in personal relationships; and 5) use of coping strategies. Participants described stress and exhaustion from navigating multiple pressures and conflicting responsibilities with home, schooling, and work, without their usual support networks and in the context of disrupted routines. Family roles and relationships were sometimes tested, however, many parents identified coping strategies that protected their wellbeing including access to outdoor space, spending time away from family, and avoiding conflict and pandemic-related media coverage. Conclusions Employers must be cognisant of the challenges that the pandemic has placed on parents, particularly women and lone parents. Flexible working arrangements and support might therefore relieve stress and increase productivity. Coping strategies identified by parents in this study could be harnessed and encouraged by employers and policymakers to promote positive wellbeing during times of stress throughout the pandemic and beyond.

Empowering Lone Parents to Progress towards Employability

Policymakers in liberal welfare states like the UK have prioritised extending the reach of compulsory activation to target vulnerable jobseeker groups, such as lone parents. However, such interventions – especially when combined with intensified welfare conditionality – appear to have had limited positive effects on lone parents’ employability, while often negatively impacting wellbeing. This article argues that the problem is a disconnect between the complex barriers to employability faced by lone parents (including their need to balance work and caring) and the content of ‘work-first’ activation favoured by successive UK Governments. We report positive findings from in-depth interviews with lone parents and key stakeholders involved in more person-centred, non-compulsory local employability services. Multi-agency service delivery, collaborative governance and a clear role for user voice in programme design were important facilitators of positive experiences. Our analysis points to the need for services that empower lone parents to make choices to progress towards employment while supporting family life.

Data linkage for early intervention in the UK: Parental social license and social divisions

Electronic linking of public records and predictive analytics to identify families for preventive early intervention increasingly is promoted by governments. We use the concept of social license to address questions of social legitimacy, agreement, and trust in data linkage and analytics for parents of dependent children, who are the focus of early intervention initiatives in the UK. We review data-steered family policy and early intervention operational service practices. We draw on a consensus baseline analysis of data from a probability-based panel survey of parents, to show that informed consent to data linkage and use is important to all parents, but there are social divisions of knowledge, agreement, and trust. There is more social license for data linkage by services among parents in higher occupation, qualification, and income groups, than among Black parents, lone parents, younger parents, and parents in larger households. These marginalized groups of parents, collectively, are more likely to be the focus of identification for early intervention. We argue that government awareness-raising exercises about the merits of data linkage are likely to bolster existing social license among advantaged parents while running the risk of further disengagement among disadvantaged groups. This is especially where inequalities and forecasting inaccuracies are encoded into early intervention data gathering, linking, and predictive practices, with consequences for a cohesive and equal society.

Lone parenthood

Chapter four explores the importance of, and relationship between, family formation, or ‘breakdown’ and lone parenthood in the context of childhood poverty. Few subjects excite the public and political imagination quite as much as the issue of lone parents. It is an area with strong connections to poverty, disadvantage, gendered inequalities, and the supposed breaching of normative values and expectations. I engage with myths and assumptions about lone parents and reveal the corrosive effect of demonising lone-parent family life on children’s lives and wellbeing. I show that relationships are dynamic, that lone parents are not a homogenous group, that a large proportion of children will spend time in a lone parent formation, and that how a government responds to lone parents in policy terms directly relates to how impoverished their children will be. This chapter also discusses how poverty and emotional mal-being are not inevitable consequences of separation and divorce. The role of separated fathers in lone parent families, particularly their financial contribution and involvement in their children’s lives, are explored.

Understanding, negotiating and navigating the politicisation of evidence-based policy research: the case of Irish research on lone parent labour market activation policy

Utilising a case study of evidence-based policy (EBP) commissioned by government we explore how academic outputs can serve several purposes, depending on the political milieu and the values and ideologies of any given party. Our commissioned research was being carried out in the context of significant policy change for lone parents in Ireland which saw the introduction of labour market activation. The research was initially used by the then Government to appease the Opposition to the highly emotive policy change. Following a general election, Opposition and advocacy groups called on policymakers to acknowledge the report they had commissioned. Concepts of research(er) deficit, normative reality and a shifting ‘policy agora’ are explored to highlight how the political context shaped the uptake of the research findings. We followed the debate by drawing on publicly available documentary evidence relevant to the policy of lone parent activation in Ireland from pertinent parliamentary and committee debates involving all stakeholders, that is the Government, civil servants, Opposition and advocacy groups, to ascertain what happened with the research and why did it happen. Attention is given to the consequences of producing outputs that diverge from political values and ideologies, whereby research can be subject to manipulation to discredit and invalidate findings.