Adaptation to Parenthood During the Post-Adoption Period: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substantial research has been conducted on new parents’ adjustment during the transition to biological parenthood. However, very little is known about adjustment experiences during the transition to adoptive parenthood. Such information could assist in creating support systems for adoptive parents similar to those that currently exist for biological parents. A systematic literature review was conducted to examine individual and relational adjustment outcomes during the transition to adoptive parenthood, limited to those studies that examined the immediate post-adoption period through 3 years post-placement. By searching six databases using a variety of keywords including post-adoption, adapt, and parent, 11 research studies were identified that reported on parental mental health, physical health, and intimate partner relationship satisfaction in the immediate post-adoption period. The studies reviewed appear to indicate that post-adoption depression is relatively common, although perhaps less so than depression among biological parents. It is difficult to draw conclusions about physical health and relationship satisfaction as only one study directly assessing each outcome was located. Findings suggest that additional research is warranted to provide a clearer characterization of physical and psychological adaptation to parenthood among adoptive parents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".