Impact of perinatal asphyxia on parental mental health and bonding with the infant: a questionnaire survey of Swiss parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare current mental health symptoms and infant bonding in parents whose infants survived perinatal asphyxia in the last 2 years with control parents and to investigate which sociodemographic, obstetric and neonatal variables correlated with parental mental health and infant bonding in the asphyxia group. Design Cross-sectional questionnaire survey of parents whose children were registered in the Swiss national Asphyxia and Cooling register and of control parents (Post-traumatic Diagnostic Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale). Results The response rate for the asphyxia group was 46.5%. Compared with controls, mothers and fathers in the asphyxia group had a higher frequency of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (p<0.001). More mothers (n=28, 56%) had a symptom diagnosis of either full or partial PTSD than controls (n=54, 39%) (p=0.032). Similarly, more fathers (n=31, 51%) had a symptom diagnosis of either partial or full PTSD than controls (n=19, 33%) (p=0.034). Mothers reported poorer bonding with the infant (p=0.043) than controls. Having a trauma in the past was linked to more psychological distress in mothers (r=0.31 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.54)) and fathers (r=0.35 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.59)). For mothers, previous pregnancy was linked to poorer bonding (r=0.41 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.63)). In fathers, therapeutic hypothermia of the infant was related to less frequent PTSD symptoms (r=−0.37 (95% CI −0.61 to −0.06)) and past psychological difficulties (r=0.37 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.60)) to more psychological distress. A lower Apgar score was linked to poorer bonding (r=−0.38 (95% CI −0.64 to −0.05)). Conclusions Parents of infants hospitalised for perinatal asphyxia are more at risk of developing PTSD than control 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".