The Relationship of Attachment Styles with Childbirth Self-efficacy in Nulliparous Pregnant Women: The Mediating Role of Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & aim: The enhancement of childbirth self-efficacy to manage the labor pain can help the nulliparous pregnant women to make informed choice about vaginal delivery. Regarding the relationship of the childbirth self-efficacy with psychological antecedents, the present study aimed to explore the meditating role of alexithymia in the relationship of attachment styles and childbirth self-efficacy among the nulliparous pregnant women. Methods: This descriptive correlational study was conducted on 210 nulliparous pregnant women, living in Shiraz in 2016. The samples were selected from the nulliparous women referring to the public and private health and medical centers through the purposive sampling technique. The data were collected using a researcher-made demographic form, Iranian version of Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory, Hazan and Shaver’s Adult Attachment Inventory, and Farsi Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20. The data analysis was performed using the descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling through the SPSS version 20 and AMOS version 21, respectively. Results: Our findings indicated that all aspects of attachment styles (i.e., secure, avoidant, and ambivalent) would be able to predict the childbirth self-efficacy in the nulliparous pregnant women. On the other hand, the secure and insecure attachment styles predicted alexithymia among this population. The results of the path analysis demonstrated that alexithymia had a mediating role in the relationship of the attachment styles and the childbirth self-efficacy. Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, it can be concluded that the attachment styles and childbirth self-efficacy had an indirect relationship mediating through such variables as alexithymia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".