Teenage pregnancy and mental health beyond the postpartum period: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teenage mothers are at increased risk for adverse social outcomes and short-term health problems, but long-term impacts on mental health are poorly understood. The aims of our systematic review were to determine the association between teenage pregnancy and mental health beyond the postpartum period, critically appraise the literature's quality and guide future research. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to June 2017 for peer-reviewed articles written in English or French. Data were collected using a modified Cochrane Data Extraction Form. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project critical appraisal tool. Heterogeneity of studies permitted only a qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Nine quantitative studies comprising the results from analyses of 11 cohorts met our criteria and were rated as strong (n=5), moderate (n=2) or weak (n=2). Three cohorts found a statistically significant association between teenage pregnancy and poor long-term mental health after adjustment, three found a statistically significant association before but not after adjustment and five did not find a statistically significant association. Studies observed varying degrees of attenuation after considering social context. Studies with statistically significant findings tended to comprise earlier cohorts, with outcomes measured at older ages. CONCLUSIONS: The association between teenage pregnancy and mental health beyond the postpartum period remains unclear. Future studies should employ age-period-cohort frameworks to disentangle effects of normative patterns and stress accumulation. Social factors are important in determining long-term mental health of teenage mothers and should be prioritised in prevention and intervention strategies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".