“These findings are clinically valuable for they show us that this injectable extended-release buprenorphine formulation is safe to use in pregnancy and results in better opioid abstinence outcomes compared to sublingual buprenorphine,” said Nora D. Volkow, M.D., director of NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “This is especially relevant in the context of the ongoing opioid overdose crisis and public health emergency.”

Illicit opioid use and untreated OUD can have dire consequences during pregnancy, including risk of fatal overdose for the mother and the development of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) and other adverse consequences for the baby. Treating OUD in pregnancy with sublingual buprenorphine is effective, but it has disadvantages, including risk of misuse, potentially poor adherence, and daily fluctuating blood levels known as peak-trough effects that may inadequately mitigate opioid-related cravings and withdrawal, leading to continued opioid use. The researchers in this study wanted to see if using a weekly formulation of subcutaneous (under-the-skin), extended-release buprenorphine injections during pregnancy—with the option of a monthly formulation for postpartum participants who were not breastfeeding—might promote as good or better opioid abstinence rates and NOWS outcomes.

In the multicenter trial, 140 pregnant adults were randomized to receive either injectable extended-release or sublingual buprenorphine (with or without naloxone). The trial, supported by the NIDA Clinical Trials Network as part of the NIH Helping to End Addiction Long-term ® Initiative (NIH HEAL Initiative^®), was the first randomized trial testing extended-release buprenorphine for OUD in pregnancy and postpartum.

The researchers found that rates of illicit opioid abstinence during pregnancy, as measured by urine drug screens, were significantly higher for those receiving weekly extended-release buprenorphine and were non-inferior postpartum compared to participants receiving sublingual buprenorphine.  While the percentage of participants experiencing non-serious maternal adverse events did not differ between the types of treatments, they were more commonly rated as medication-related in the extended-release group during pregnancy. Serious maternal adverse events were less common in the extended-release group throughout the trial. NOWS outcomes did not differ between the treatment groups.

“We knew that injectable extended-release buprenorphine leads to superior rates of illicit opioid abstinence in non-pregnant adults, but there had been no completed randomized clinical trial testing its use during pregnancy,” said principal investigator and lead author John Winhusen, Ph.D., professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. “It is exciting to share the results of this trial, which have immediate clinical application: this longer-acting medication can safely and more effectively support treatment and recovery in pregnant patients.”

The Simplified Adolescent Factors for Endometriosis (SAFE) score uses a questionnaire to identify at-risk patients and fast track specialist referrals for further investigation.

Professor Gita Mishra AO, Centre Director of UQ’s Australian Women and Girls’ Health Research Centre, said the test could prevent years of waiting for a diagnosis.

“The test uses 6 questions to detect girls or young women at risk of endometriosis and in need of further assessment,” Professor Mishra said.

“Identifying which patients should be referred and treated is challenging and improving how patients are diagnosed is a major priority.

“By detecting endometriosis earlier – ideally in adolescents as soon as they begin their periods – we hope the tool will reduce the average 6-8-year diagnostic delay so we can start treatment as early as possible.’’

Endometriosis is an often-crippling condition where tissue, similar to the inner lining of the uterus, grows outside of it.

The condition has no cure and affects up to 11 per cent of Australian women of reproductive age.

Using the questionnaire, young women are asked if they experience pelvic pain often, if they’ve sought treatment for pelvic pain, taken painkillers for pelvic pain, experienced heavy menstrual bleeding or painful periods, and have a family history of endometriosis.

The SAFE score works on a point‑based system and would help guide referrals in primary care.

The more risk factors identified, the higher a woman’s score and the greater likelihood of the condition.

The tool was designed using data from more than 9000 women from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health, with researchers identifying risk factors for endometriosis.

“This simple tool can be used in women of any age, but we have carefully chosen age-appropriate questions to target adolescents,” Professor Mishra said.

“Long delays in diagnosis can be due to unclear symptoms, lack of awareness, misdiagnosis, and normalisation of menstrual pain which impacts quality of life.

“The condition often involves surgery to confirm diagnosis, although experts are working to change this so the condition can be picked up through ultrasound or MRI.

“We need to be able to detect endometriosis early because our research found most women were diagnosed in their late twenties, often when they are trying to fall pregnant.

“Early diagnosis is critical because it can change treatment of fertility issues later on.

“The usual treatment route is ovulation induction, but this is not as effective as IVF for women with endometriosis.’’

Next steps will evaluate the tool in clinical settings, assess its practicality in Brisbane GP, endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics, and explore if an app can be developed.

March is Endometriosis Awareness Month, signified internationally by the colour yellow.

The research is published in eClinicalMedicine.

When they analyzed 2012–2024 information on 45,619 babies born at 24–32 weeks’ gestation at 1,111 hospitals in an international network, along with information from the UK National Neonatal Research Database and a literature review, investigators found that on average, less than half of infants had been exposed to preterm magnesium sulfate in middle-income countries, and approximately three-quarters in high-income countries. Even within high-income countries, there were large discrepancies in care. Preterm steroids were used more frequently with less variation, although treatment gaps were still apparent.

“Our study has highlighted the international disparities in how two key treatments to protect pre-term babies are implemented. These gaps aren’t because of a lack of evidence,” said corresponding author Hannah B. Edwards, MA, MSc, of the University of Bristol, in the UK. “Lessons can be learned from successful implementation programs like PReCePT, which has transformed use of magnesium sulphate in pre-term births in England. The bigger-picture goal should now be to ensure that no matter where a baby is born, their mother has access to the evidence-based treatments that offer the best start in life.”

URL upon publication: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.70832

Vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza are recommended during pregnancy by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Norway, as pregnant women and their newborns have an increased risk of severe outcomes from these diseases. For at-risk groups, the WHO recommends a vaccination target of 75% for both infections.

These findings emphasise the need for more targeted strategies and better integration of vaccinations into routine pre-natal care for pregnant women in Norway, along with comprehensive surveillance of maternal vaccination.

In Norway, the influenza vaccine is provided during the influenza season, while the COVID-19 vaccine is available year-round. Generally, both vaccines are recommended to pregnant women during the second and third trimester. Pregnant women in Norway access these vaccines through self-initiated appointments with healthcare professionals; the influenza vaccine is provided at a cost, while the COVID-19 vaccine is free.

Significant variation in coverage depending on month of delivery and timing during pregnancy

Stecher et al. looked at how many pregnant women received the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines during the 2023/24 influenza season, at what stage of pregnancy they received the vaccine, and whether uptake differed by age group or region.

A total of 53,161 women were included in the study. Researchers drew data from two Norwegian national registries, with the study population comprising all women who delivered in Norway between 1 October 2023 and 30 September 2024, as identified in the Medical Birth Registry Norway (MBRN). The records and birth data from MBRN were then linked to data from the Norwegian Immunisation Registry (SYSVAK).

Despite universal recommendations for vaccination during pregnancy, coverage in the influenza season 2023/24 was low at 29.9% and 12.1% for influenza and COVID-19, respectively, while only 11.4% of pregnant women received both vaccines.

For the influenza vaccine, 22.3% of women were vaccinated in the second or third trimester. Coverage increased from 16.4% in October to 26.4% in November, and levelled off thereafter. It was highest among women delivering in February at 50.8%, declining afterwards. Coverage for the COVID-19 vaccine followed a similar pattern to influenza, with 10.1% of women receiving the vaccine in the second or third trimester.

Low vaccination rates despite high trust in health authorities

There were considerable differences across regions and age groups, despite the population’s high level of trust in health authorities and recommendations, and the authors point to practical and psychological barriers to vaccination. The lowest uptake was among women aged 25 years or younger. Regionally, the Oslo and Vestland counties had the highest vaccination coverage, while the lowest coverage was found in Northern Norway.

Stecher et al. suggest removing financial barriers, improving accessibility, and exploring information sources on vaccines trusted by women to address hesitancy. The authors also cite international evidence supporting the integration of free vaccination into routine pre-natal care, with vaccination coverage for whooping cough among pregnant women improving when the vaccine was introduced into Norway’s maternal immunisation programme.

Similar challenges globally, including limited surveillance systems and inconsistent integration, highlight the importance of coordinated efforts to promote maternal immunisation in Europe and worldwide.

There is no new evidence that would require changes to the current long-standing recommendation, the Agency stressed. It cited a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health which found no evidence linking paracetamol to autism, ADHD or intellectual disability in children.

‘Paracetamol remains an important option to treat pain or fever in pregnant women,’ said EMA’s Chief Medical Officer, Steffen Thirstrup. ‘Our advice is based on rigorous assessment of the available scientific data and we have found no evidence that taking paracetamol during pregnancy causes autism in children.’

The unusual decision to issue a statement – which announces no change in advice and no new evidence to review – comes in response to misinformation which falsely linked the common pain reliever with developmental changes. This idea was repeated by senior politicians in the United States in recent months, sparking widespread concern worldwide.

Without naming those who have perpetuated the myth, the EU regulator pushed back against the baseless medical claim which has potential to cause distress and avoidable physical suffering for pregnant women with a fever.

The EMA said it has a large amount of data from pregnant women who used paracetamol during pregnancy, over a very long period of time, and has seen no evidence of any risk of malformations in the developing foetus or in newborns.

‘When needed, paracetamol can be used during pregnancy. As with any medicine for acute treatment, it should be used at the lowest effective dose, for the shortest possible time and as infrequently as possible,’ the EMA statement said. ‘Pregnant women should speak to their healthcare professional if they have questions about any medication during pregnancy.’

The findings were published on January 16, 2026 in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women’s Health journal.

As background, the authors noted, “Concerns have emerged about the impact of paracetamol use in pregnancy on child neurodevelopment, particularly in relation to autism spectrum disorder. We aimed to synthesize available evidence to investigate associations between prenatal paracetamol exposure and autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and intellectual disability.”

The authors concluded, “This systematic review and meta-analysis found no evidence that maternal paracetamol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or intellectual disability among children. The null findings remained consistent when analyses were harmonized to studies with longer follow-up, those employing sibling comparisons, and those at low risk of bias.”

They included 43 studies in this systematic review, and 17 studies in the meta-analysis.

The largest and most rigorous studies, specifically those with sibling comparisons, provided strong evidence that paracetamol-use during pregnancy is not a cause of autism, ADHD or intellectual disabilities.

Sibling comparison studies are designed to compare outcomes between siblings with different exposures (one sibling exposed to a drug, the other not) to control for shared genetic and environmental factors, and helping to isolate an accurate effect of exposure.

They reported that, when considering sibling comparison studies, paracetamol exposure during pregnancy was not associated with the risk of autism spectrum disorder (p=0·45), ADHD (p=0·31), or intellectual disability (p=0·63).

They also reported finding no association between paracetamol use during pregnancy and autism spectrum disorder (p=0·78), ADHD (p=0·49), or intellectual disability (p=0·28) when considering only studies at low risk of bias.

Low-risk-of-bias studies have strong designs, methods, and reporting, meaning their results are considered valid and reliable.

“This absence of association persisted when considering all studies with adjusted estimates and those with more than 5 years of follow-up,” they noted.

In an COMMENT appearing with the study, the authors said, “For now, this study reinforces that the strongest epidemiological evidence does not support a link between paracetamol use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental harm, confirming that, when clinically-indicated, paracetamol remains an important and evidence-supported option for the management of fever and pain during pregnancy, particularly in settings where untreated maternal infection and fever pose well-established risks to fetal survival and neurodevelopment.

Researchers surveyed 422 clinicians who regularly prescribe birth control and found that only about a third of those who were aware of the option prescribe it. The providers said they were concerned about their patients’ ability to self-inject, the medication’s availability at pharmacies, and the lack of standardized approaches to counseling and prescribing it.

The study is the first to document the barriers that prevent widespread adoption of self-administered injectable contraception. It was published Jan. 8 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Since most physicians don’t know that this is an option, patients don’t know about it,” said Jennifer Karlin, MD, PhD, a UCSF associate professor of Family and Community Medicine and the paper’s senior author. “It’s safe, effective, and puts the control in patients’ own hands. We should be talking about and offering it to patients without biases.”

Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) is an injectable form of progestin, which is a synthetic form of the natural hormone progesterone. The drug prevents pregnancy for up to three months by stopping ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining.

DMPA is available in two injectable forms: an intramuscular injection, marketed under the name Depo Provera, that can only be administered by a provider, and one that is injected just under the skin. This subcutaneous version can be easily self-injected, like the now popular injectable GLP-1 weight-loss drugs.

The drug has been associated with potential side effects, such as reduced bone mineral density, weight gain, and a benign brain tumor called meningioma. While the overall risk of these side effects is low, it is important that clinicians discuss the risks and benefits with their patients.

The subcutaneous version, approved in 2004, is officially labeled for administration by a clinician, but doctors have been training patients to self-inject safely for many years. Self-injectable contraception is more commonly used globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It became more widely used in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the study found more than half the prescribers surveyed learned about it between 2020 and 2022.

Both international and national guidelines recommend making this option accessible to all patients, but the study found that providers in states with restricted abortion access were less likely to prescribe it. Other obstacles include insufficient educational materials, lack of staff support, and limited time for consulting with patients.

To make the option more widely available, the authors recommend an education campaign for clinicians about self-administration of injectable contraceptives. They also advocate for FDA approval of the version of the injectable that can be self-administered, as well as ensuring that insurance cover it and streamlining clinic workflows.

Authors: Additional authors include Chase Clark, of UC Davis; and An-Lin Cheung, PhD, and Laura Creason, MS, of the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Funding: The work was supported by a grant from the Society of Family Planning (SFPRF16). The authors had nothing to disclose.

About UCSF: The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is exclusively focused on the health sciences and is dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. UCSF Health, which serves as UCSF’s primary academic medical center, includes top-ranked specialty hospitals and other clinical programs, and has affiliations throughout the Bay Area. UCSF School of Medicine also has a regional campus in Fresno. Learn more at https://ucsf.edu or see our Fact Sheet.

IVF patients must inject themselves with hormones daily at specific times in the weeks leading up to egg retrieval, a process that can be physically and emotionally taxing.

The team’s new system uses a hydrogel microneedle patch filled with specially engineered nanoparticles that hold and release a key IVF hormone, leuprolide, when stimulated by near-infrared light. The light can be programmed to release the drug at the desired time.

Toward personalized, programmable dosing

Current light-triggered drug delivery systems often release foreign materials into the body, posing regulatory and safety challenges.

“This is the first time that we were able to show light-triggered drug release from a nanoparticle-microneedle composite without releasing any foreign substance into the body,” said Marta Cerruti, a materials engineering professor and senior author of the study in Small.

The researchers say this key advance could accelerate clinical translation, as the delivery system leaves no nanoparticles behind in the skin.

In building their system, the team first optimized how many hormone-bearing nanoparticles could be incorporated into each microneedle without weakening its ability to penetrate skin. They then tested whether the light trigger could release the hormone into a porcine skin model over two hours. Finally, they demonstrated that even a short five-minute pulse of light released measurable levels of leuprolide into the skin, bloodstream and organs of a live rat.

“The light can also be programmed to release the drug at the specific time the drug is needed, which could differ for each individual,” said Tam, the PhD student in Cerruti’s lab who was also the lead author on this study.

“IVF success rates are at best 30 per cent, even for the youngest women. The hope is that if you take out the human error with injecting yourself and deliver the drug at times optimized for each patient, you could potentially see this success rate go up,” she said.

Beyond IVF

For IVF patients, the technology could make treatment easier, less painful and potentially more effective, but the system could also help anyone who relies on daily injections, including people with diabetes or multiple sclerosis.

Because no nanoparticles enter the body, the researchers say the platform has a clearer pathway to clinical adoption than previous systems. More work is planned to refine dosing, explore hormone release profiles and investigate commercial possibilities.

About the study

“Upconverting Nanoparticle-Loaded Microneedles for Near-Infrared Responsive Delivery of Gonadotropins to Increase Success of In-Vitro Fertilization” by Vivienne Tam, Rusvir Trana, Alfonso Nieto-Arguello, Ore-Oluwa Olasubulumi, Samuel Babity, Artiom Skripka, Fiorenzo Vetrone, Davide Brambilla, and Marta Cerruti, was published in Small.

Funding

This research was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships.

The study, led by Dr Bassel Wattar of Anglia Ruskin University and published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women’s Health journal, is the first UK-based multicentre study to evaluate the prevalence of acute HMB and number of women requiring red blood cell transfusion.

The observational study analysed data from 98 NHS gynaecology units between January and June 2024. Researchers found that 1,332 women were admitted to receive a total of 3,025 units of red blood cells as a last measure to manage acute HMB.

The average hospital stay was two days, with most patients receiving additional treatments such as tranexamic acid, iron supplements, or hormonal therapy. Nearly half of the women had uterine fibroids, and 20% were discharged while still anaemic.

The authors believe many of these cases could be handled in the community or by outpatient services, reducing the need for expensive hospital admissions.

The study estimates the mean cost per admission at £2,972 and the average cost of post-discharge management at £1,735. When extrapolated over 12 months, the total cost to the NHS is estimated to be £13,018,448.

The findings highlighted a lack of standardised pathways for managing acute HMB, which differs from chronic menstrual disorders. Despite existing NICE guidelines for chronic HMB, there is no specific coding or national strategy for acute cases, making it difficult to track and treat effectively.

The study also found wide regional variation in admissions and treatment approaches, with London regions reporting the highest numbers.

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects approximately one in four women of reproductive age.

Researchers are calling for urgent investment in community-based gynaecology services, including one-stop clinics with access to diagnostics and minor surgical procedures. They also recommend developing national guidelines and coding systems to better identify and manage acute HMB.

Dr Wattar, Associate Professor of Reproductive Medicine at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), said: “This is a silent crisis in women’s health. We are seeing thousands of women admitted to hospital for a condition that could often be managed earlier and more effectively in the community.

“Current guidelines and services offered in the NHS do not offer a clear pathway for managing acute heavy menstrual bleeding efficiently.

“This mismanagement leads to women are being discharged with temporary fixes, often still anaemic, and left to navigate long waiting lists for definitive care. We need to shift from reactive to proactive care.”

The study involved over 100 NHS clinicians and researchers through the UK Audit and Research Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (UKARCOG).

Now, a new register-based study from the University of Southern Denmark reveals that depression is more prevalent among women with one of the 24 most common gynaecological conditions—and that mental health symptoms often appear long before a diagnosis is made.

– Many women live with psychological symptoms for years without anyone recognising that they might be linked to physical issues in the reproductive system, says Mette Bliddal, associate professor at the Research Unit for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Clinical Research, and lead author of the study.

The study found that depression was 44 percent more common among women with a gynaecological disorder even before diagnosis. In the year leading up to and the year following diagnosis, the risk of depression was between 15 and 109 percent higher, depending on the specific condition.

Large-scale register study over 13 years

The study draws on Danish health data for over 2.2 million women aged 15 to 49, covering the years 2005 to 2018. Of these, 265,891 women—12 percent—had been diagnosed with at least one of 24 different reproductive disorders.

The findings show a significantly increased prevalence of depression among women with a gynaecological diagnosis. This elevated risk begins well before diagnosis and peaks in the year following. The trend is evident both among women who had received a hospital-based diagnosis of depression and those who were prescribed antidepressant medication

– The overall picture suggests that physical discomfort and psychological distress often go hand in hand—and that it starts earlier than the healthcare system usually detects, says Mette Bliddal.

Most pronounced for painful conditions

The greatest differences in depression rates were found among women with painful conditions, such as menstrual-related pain and endometriosis. In these cases, the risk of depression was nearly twice as high as for women without these diagnoses.

– This suggests that many women may develop mental health symptoms in response to their physical discomfort, and that these reactions may be overlooked in a healthcare system that primarily focuses on physical symptoms, says Mette Bliddal.

A need for more holistic care

The study does not establish a causal link, but the clear overrepresentation of depression among women with gynaecological conditions points to a need for changes in clinical practice.

The researchers call for a more integrated approach between somatic and psychiatric care, both during initial assessment and in follow-up. This applies especially to general practice and gynaecological care.

– When so many women are affected by both physical and psychological burdens, we need to adopt a more holistic mindset. Systematic attention must be given to women’s mental wellbeing when investigating gynaecological disorders, says Mette Bliddal.

Three questions for Mette Bliddal about the study

What does the study investigate?

We examine the prevalence of depression in women before and after being diagnosed with a reproductive disorder—conditions such as endometriosis, PCOS, and irregular or painful menstruation. We look at 24 different disorders, all related to women’s reproductive health.

What is the most important finding?

For all the conditions studied, we see a higher prevalence of depression among women who are later diagnosed with one of these disorders, compared to women without. This increased prevalence is already visible three years before diagnosis and can persist for up to three years afterwards.

How can the results be used?

Although we cannot determine causality, the study clearly shows that women’s mental health may be significantly affected by disorders of the reproductive system.

About the study

Method

The study is based on Danish registry data and was conducted by researchers at the University of Southern Denmark in collaboration with New York University, among others.

It is a register-based cohort study covering the period from 2005 to 2018

It includes:

• 2,295,824 women aged 15–49
• 265,891 women with at least one diagnosis from a list of 24 gynaecological disorders, including endometriosis, PCOS, menstrual irregularities, and pelvic pain
• For each diagnosed woman, five peers without reproductive diagnoses were selected as a comparison group
• Depression was measured either as a hospital diagnosis (ICD-10: F32–F39) or as redemption of antidepressant medication (ATC code N06A)
• Depression rates were tracked from three years before to three years after diagnosis

Key findings:

• Women with a gynaecological diagnosis had consistently higher rates of depression compared to those without.
• As early as three years before diagnosis, depression was 44% more common among women with a reproductive disorder (prevalence ratio 1.44).
• The greatest differences were seen in painful disorders like pelvic pain and endometriosis, where depression was nearly twice as common.
• In the year following diagnosis, the risk of depression was between 15% and 109% higher, depending on the type of condition (incidence rate ratio 1.15–2.09)

Data came from the Danish National Patient Register and the Danish National Prescription Registry, allowing the researchers to monitor both moderate and severe cases of depression over time.

The study was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Region of Southern Denmark.

The study “The Overlooked Link between Reproductive System Disorders and Depression: A Cohort Study in 2 Million Women” is published in Psychological Medicine. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/overlooked-link-between-reproductive-system-disorders-and-depression-a-cohort-study-in-2-million-women/B99A455A991C103BDEEC553CB69910AA

Despite widespread use during pregnancy and continued growth of the no- and low-alcohol drinks market – such as alcohol-free or low-alcohol beers, wines and spirits – the findings highlight that many women feel there is a lack of guidance from healthcare professionals about these alternatives, prompting calls for clearer information and support.

The World Health Organisation advises there is no known safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Yet, with the UK Government’s 10-Year Health Plan including plans to consult on changing the upper strength threshold at which a drink may be described as alcohol free to (from 0.05% currently to 0.5% ABV), experts are even keener to ensure consistent information is provided.

The first-of-its-kind peer-reviewed study, conducted by the University of Plymouth on behalf of Alcohol Change UK, explored how more than 2,000 currently or recently pregnant women think and feel about alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks, as well as how regularly, if at all, they are consumed during pregnancy and why.

The report highlights four key recommendations:

1. Clarity – is needed on the safety and suitability of alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks during pregnancy. Specifically, clarity is needed on those in the 0.05-1.2% ABV category as there are greater concerns expressed about the threshold levels.
2. Labelling – of low-alcohol drinks should be improved, so that they are clearly distinguishable from alcohol-free drinks.
3. Clear guidelines for professionals – about alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks during pregnancy and breastfeeding are needed for health care professionals so that consistent advice can be provided.
4. Ensuring no- and low-alcohol is part of pre-existing advice for pregnancy and beyond – organisations that provide advice to pregnant and breastfeeding women about alcohol, should also include specific advice about low-alcohol and alcohol-free drinks.

Safety, socialising and stealth – why women opt for alcohol alternatives during pregnancy

Among those who report consuming alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks during pregnancy, the leading motivation is safety, with almost three quarters (72%) keen ‘to choose a safer alternative to alcohol’. This is followed by 69% saying these drinks help them to ‘feel included in social events involving alcohol’ and 45% because they like the taste.

Notably, these alternatives are more popular among women reporting higher levels of alcohol consumption pre-pregnancy, with nine in 10 (91%) using them at some point while pregnant. This group is also more likely to report that these drinks help them to conceal a pregnancy in the early stages, due to their similar appearance to alcoholic drinks.

Widely used but confused

Although the use of alcohol-free and low-alcohol options during pregnancy is commonplace, almost 6 in 10 respondents (57%) think that there is insufficient information available about these drinks in relation to pregnancy.

More than half of women surveyed (55%) said they did not receive any information about these drinks from sources including a midwife, GP or pregnancy organisation. Internet search was the leading source of information (22%), followed by advertising (14%) and social media (13%), while fewer than 1 in 10 (8%) received information from their midwife.

More than three quarters feel that drinks clearly labelled 0% or alcohol-free are ‘very acceptable’ during pregnancy (78%) and when breastfeeding (80%). Yet, for low-alcohol drinks between 0.5-1.2% ABV, the proportion of those deeming them ‘very acceptable’ drops to just 11% during pregnancy and 40% when breastfeeding. Follow-up interviews reaffirmed these concerns and confusion over the ABV content, safety and labelling of low-alcohol options.

Dr Kate Maslin, Senior Research Fellow in Maternal and Child Health at the University of Plymouth and project lead, said:

“Alcohol-free drinks have clearly found favour among pregnant and recently pregnant women as they look to make safer choices when socialising during pregnancy. Yet, what really shone through, both in the data and when speaking with individuals to explore their experiences and attitudes further, was a feeling that information about the safety and suitability of these alternatives, particularly from healthcare and pregnancy professionals, has not kept pace.

“The World Health Organisation advises there is no known safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, however with the growing popularity of these no- and low- drinks, there is a reliance on internet searching and social media for guidance on their use during pregnancy, both of which can contain misinformation or conflicting information. Alongside further research into the safety and suitability of alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks during pregnancy, it’s important that those engaging with and supporting pregnant women are equipped to give clear, consistent advice.”

Alcohol Change UK commissioned the study in response to continued growth of the UK’s no- and low-alcohol drinks sector. According to drinks industry data firm IWSR, the total UK market was expected to have more than doubled in 2024 vs 2023.

Ailar Hashemzadeh, Director of Research and Public Affairs at Alcohol Change UK, added:

“Many people try to avoid alcohol when pregnant, and the growing number of alcohol-free and low-alcohol beers, wines and cocktails offers a way to do that while still enjoying what feels like a ‘grown up’ drink. What this research has found, however, is that there is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of guesswork going on, particularly with drinks that aren’t completely alcohol-free. This sector of the drinks market seems set to keep on growing, and expectant parents would really benefit from clear advice from trusted professionals on when and how to use these drinks.”

To read the full report (live from 00:01 on Monday 1 December 2025), please visit https://alcoholchange.org.uk/publication/understanding-the-use-of-alcohol-free-and-low-alcohol-drinks-during-pregnancy.

Hyperemesis gravidarum is associated with severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, preventing a person from eating and drinking normally, and making everyday life extremely difficult. It occurs in 0.3 to 3.6 percent of all pregnancies and is the most common cause of hospitalisation in the first trimester of pregnancy. In addition to the physical effects, severe nausea in pregnancy carries a considerable psychosocial burden. However, information on its association with psychiatric illness has been limited so far.

Researchers analysed register data from over 437,000 Finnish women from 2004 to 2017. The results show that 8.8 percent of women with severe nausea during pregnancy had depression before pregnancy, compared to 1.0 percent in the control group. This means that these women were more than five times as likely to experience depression before pregnancy.

In addition, they were also about 3.5 times more likely to develop new, previously undiagnosed depression after childbirth: 4.9 percent were diagnosed with a new-onset depression after childbirth, compared to 1.0 percent in the control group.

After giving birth, depression was also diagnosed earlier in women who had suffered from severe nausea during pregnancy compared to others. On average, depression was diagnosed 3.3 years after delivery in women with severe nausea during pregnancy, compared with an average of 4.5 years after delivery in their controls.

The study suggests that severe nausea during pregnancy and depression may have shared biological mechanisms. The findings highlight the importance of systematic psychiatric screening during and after pregnancy, and the need for a multidisciplinary approach to care.

‘Our research shows that severe nausea in pregnancy is not only a physically stressful condition, but also a significant mental health risk factor. The results emphasise the need for improved collaboration between psychiatry, gynaecology, and primary care. Our aim is also to raise awareness and improve access to support for these patients,’ says Dr Eeva Terävä-Utti from the University of Turku.