A systematic review of nonpharmacological prenatal interventions for pregnancy‐specific anxiety and fear of childbirth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a sharp increase in the number of publications that report on treatment options for pregnancy-specific anxiety and fear of childbirth (PSA/FoB), no systematic review of nonpharmacological prenatal interventions for PSA/FoB has been published. Our team addressed this gap, as an important first step in developing guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of women with PSA/FoB. METHODS: Two databases (PubMed and Mendeley) were searched, using a combination of 42 search terms. After removing duplicates, two authors independently assessed 208 abstracts. Sixteen studies met eligibility criteria, ie, the article reported on an intervention, educational component, or treatment regime for PSA/FoB during pregnancy, and included a control group. Independent quality assessments resulted in the retention of seven studies. RESULTS: Six of seven included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one a quasi-experimental study. Five studies received moderate quality ratings and two strong ratings. Five of seven studies reported significant changes in PSA/FoB, as a result of the intervention. Short individual psychotherapeutic interventions (1.5-5 hours) delivered by midwives or obstetricians were effective for women with elevated childbirth fear. Interventions that were effective for pregnant women with a range of different fear/anxiety levels were childbirth education at the hospital (2 hours), prenatal Hatha yoga (8 weeks), and an 8-week prenatal education course (16 hours). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review can inform the development of treatment approaches to support pregnant women with PSA/FoB.
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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".