Exposure to overprotective parenting and psychopathology in extremely low birth weight survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extremely low birth weight (ELBW; <1,000 g) infants are the most vulnerable babies and are at higher risk for experiencing overprotective (i.e., controlling and intrusive) parenting, which is hypothesized to contribute to the risk for mental disorders. Despite the increased risk for anxiety disorders and decreased risk for alcohol or substance use disorders seen in ELBW survivors, no research has examined the impact of parenting. This study investigated if overprotective parenting mediates links between ELBW birth status and psychiatric disorders in adulthood. STUDY DESIGN: Participants included ELBW survivors born in 1977-1982 and matched normal birth weight (≥2,500 g) control participants (ELBW n = 81; normal birth weight n = 87) prospectively followed in Ontario, Canada. These individuals retrospectively reported on whether either of their parents was overprotective using the Parental Bonding Instrument. Presence of a current anxiety disorder and of current alcohol or substance use disorders was assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview at age 29-36 years. RESULTS: Path analysis showed that overprotective parenting was a significant mediator of the association between ELBW status and risk for an anxiety disorder in adulthood and the risk for an alcohol or substance use disorder in adulthood in ELBW survivors. Overprotective parenting accounted for 53% of the association between ELBW status and the risk for an anxiety disorder in adulthood and 26% of the association between ELBW status and alcohol or substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Overprotective parenting accounted for a substantial proportion of the increased risk for anxiety and alcohol or substance use disorders in adulthood in ELBW survivors. Despite their perceived vulnerabilities, it is important that the parents of ELBW survivors be supported in their attempts to facilitate their children's pursuit of independence during childhood and beyond.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".