Correlates and Predictors of New Mothers’ Responses to Postpartum Thoughts of Accidental and Intentional Harm and Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unwanted, intrusive thoughts of infant-related harm are a normal, albeit distressing experience for most new mothers. The occurrence of these thoughts can represent a risk factor for the development of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). As the early postpartum period represents a time of increased risk for OCD development, the transition to parenthood provides a unique opportunity to better understand OCD development. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess components of cognitive behavioural conceptualizations of postpartum OCD in relation to new mothers' thoughts of infant-related harm. METHOD: English-speaking pregnant women (n = 100) participated. Questionnaires were completed at approximately 36 weeks of gestation, and at 4 and 12 weeks postpartum. An interview to assess postpartum harm thoughts was administered at 4 and 12 weeks postpartum. Questionnaires assessed OC symptoms, OC-related beliefs, fatigue, sleep difficulties and negative mood. RESULTS: Prenatal OC-related beliefs predicted postpartum OC symptoms, as well as harm thought characteristics and behavioural responses to harm thoughts. The severity of behavioural responses to early postpartum harm thoughts did not predict later postpartum OC symptoms, but did predict frequency and time occupation of accidental harm thoughts, and interference in parenting by intentional harm thoughts. Strong relationships between OC symptoms and harm thought characteristics, and concurrent sleep difficulties, negative mood and fatigue were also found. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide support for cognitive behavioural conceptualizations of postpartum OCD and emphasize the importance of maternal sleep, fatigue and negative mood in the relationship between OC-related beliefs and maternal cognitive and behavioural responses to postpartum harm thoughts.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".